AAO research
EB-1A original contributions of major significance — AAO decision NOV052013_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV052013_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. The AAO finds original contributions, authorship and leading/critical-role evidence insufficient to meet three criteria; 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: The physical source concerns an EB-1A extraordinary-ability Form I-140 petition or a motion/revocation proceeding arising from one.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV052013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 5, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability (Form I-140) |
Procedural posture | Nonprecedent AAO appeal from Texas Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO concludes the threshold evidentiary criteria are not met and does not conduct final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO finds original contributions, authorship and leading/critical-role evidence insufficient to meet three criteria; 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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — p. 9 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
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: Petitioner is a physician/researcher in gynecology and clinical medicine.; evidence_pages: 2; 6; 7
claim: The AAO finds research and expert-letter evidence does not establish original contributions of major significance, and also rejects authorship and leading-role evidence.; evidence_pages: 6; 7; 8; 9; 10
claim: The required criteria threshold is not met; appeal dismissed.; evidence_pages: 10; 11
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.