AAO research
EB-1A scholarly authorship — AAO decision NOV032012_10B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV032012_10B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. The petitioner failed to establish at least three criteria. The award was not shown to be an award for excellence in medicine; on appeal the membership and published-material arguments were abandoned; claimed contributions lacked corroborated impact or validation; the conference manuscript was unpublished and did not meet scholarly authorship requirements (pp. 4–8).
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: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV032012_10B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 3, 2012 |
Classification / field stated in source | Physician/researcher whose claimed work concerned Parkinson’s disease and treatment using acupuncture/oriental medicine. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial of Form I-140; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. |
Final-merits status | Not reached as separate final-merits determination because fewer than three criteria were shown; decision states aggregate evidence was not sufficient (p. 8). |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petitioner failed to establish at least three criteria. The award was not shown to be an award for excellence in medicine; on appeal the membership and published-material arguments were abandoned; claimed contributions lacked corroborated impact or validation; the conference manuscript was unpublished and did not meet scholarly authorship requirements (pp. 4–8).
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 — source PDF |
Membership | Abandoned or waived — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Abandoned or waived — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | not met |
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
pp. 1–8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Potential comparator for clinical/alternative-treatment claims: distinguish an individual anecdote, a conference presentation, publication, reproducibility, and independent validation. Preserve 2012 legal context. Individual source-cited case page; consider a tightly scoped evidence-quality cluster with clinical research cases only.
Editorial use note: Individual source-cited case page; consider a tightly scoped evidence-quality cluster with clinical research cases only.
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
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Corroborat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.