AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision MAY292020_09B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The petitioner had two met criteria (judging and artistic display); awards, published material, contributions, and leading/critical role did not establish a third.
Source reviewed: This page summarizes the specific AAO source and posture recorded in the completed source-review tracker. It does not turn a nonprecedent decision into a general rule.
Scope classification from review: The source is an AAO decision on a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition; comparison caveats preserve unusual field or procedural details.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY292020_09B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 29, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of service-center denial of Form I-140; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The initial three-criterion threshold was not met; the decision does not conduct a distinct final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petitioner had two met criteria (judging and artistic display); awards, published material, contributions, and leading/critical role did not establish a third.
Criterion-by-criterion status in this source
These labels reproduce the source-review record. “Not considered,” “not reached,” and “not coded” do not mean the criterion failed. A Director finding recited as background is not an AAO holding unless the decision says so.
Criterion | Source-review status |
|---|---|
Awards | Not met — p. 3 |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | met — p. 6 |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 7 |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The AAO found artistic display and judging met; awards, published material, and leading/critical role were not met.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6
claim: Original contributions were not shown to have major significance in the field; the evidence concerned local performances and lacked field-wide influence.; pages: 6; 7
claim: The appeal was dismissed after the three-criterion threshold was not met.; pages: 7; 8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
How to use this record
This is a historical, nonprecedent AAO decision about its own administrative record. It is not a prediction, success rate, or current filing instruction. Compare the issue and procedural stage before drawing an analogy. The current framework is in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2.
Related corpus research
Full-corpus research index
Awards research
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Performance sector research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.