AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision MAY302018_03B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision MAY302018_03B2203: dismissed. Final merits unfavorable; appeal dismissed.
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: EB-1A AAO appellate or motion decision; reviewed for source-grounded findings and procedural posture.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | MAY302018_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | May 30, 2018 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A AAO decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; formal final-merits analysis; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits determination unfavorable. AAO found judging and scholarly authorship, but not original contributions at initial step; nevertheless expressly assessed totality and found no sustained acclaim/top-of-field. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Final merits unfavorable; appeal dismissed.
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Director’s findings of judging and scholarly authorship were affirmed; original contributions criterion was withdrawn.; pages: 2
claim: The petitioner reviewed two manuscripts and authored six journal articles.; pages: 2; 3; 4
claim: Citation history was about 90 total, highest article about 58 and others 10 or fewer; no evidence tied metrics to acclaim; journal impact factor did not show individual influence.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Final merits unfavorable; appeal dismissed.; pages: 3; 6
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: eligible_for_aggregation: True; eligible_for_individual_decision_page: True; reason: Strong narrow comparison for formal final-merits weighing of peer review, publication counts, citations, and impact factors; do not say criterion threshold was met.; recommended_use: Source-cited individual page; aggregate only with procedural and date caveats preserved.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.