AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV012006_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV012006_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). No three initial criteria were met. Awards were institutional/local or unsupported; published articles were post-filing or not qualifying media; judging evidence did not show professional evaluations; authorship evidence lacked proof of publication/impact; display and salary were unsupported; final merits not reached (pp. 3–6).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: In scope; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV012006_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 1, 2006 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability in the arts; petitioner is a fashion designer (p. 2). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Vermont Service Center denial; record included awards, media, judging, authorship, display, salary and role evidence (pp. 2–6). |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
No three initial criteria were met. Awards were institutional/local or unsupported; published articles were post-filing or not qualifying media; judging evidence did not show professional evaluations; authorship evidence lacked proof of publication/impact; display and salary were unsupported; final merits not reached (pp. 3–6).
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 |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | Not met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"Identity redacted; the decision’s many claims are individualized and should not be generalized to fashion designers."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
physical p1: Public-copy cover; date, field and petition.; physical p2: Appeal posture, fashion-designer classification, rule and criteria.; physical p3: Awards fail; published material standard and evidence.; physical p4: Published material and judging fail; authorship claim lacks corroboration.; physical p5: Display and salary fail; no threshold and sustained acclaim not shown.; physical p6: Continued-work evidence absent; appeal dismissed.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful historical fashion-design case for evidence requirements around awards, media, judging, exhibits and salary comparison. Eligible as an older negative case summary with citations and clear historical context.
Editorial use note: Eligible as an older negative case summary with citations and clear historical context.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 2 — Appeal posture, fashion-designer classification, rule and criteria.
PDF page 3 — Awards fail; published material standard and evidence.
PDF page 4 — Published material and judging fail; authorship claim lacks corroboration.
PDF page 5 — Display and salary fail; no threshold and sustained acclaim not shown.
PDF page 6 — Continued-work evidence absent; appeal dismissed.
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
Published material about the person research
High salary or remuneration research
Performance sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.