AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision NOV072019_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV072019_01B2203: dismissed. Editorial-board membership did not establish actual judging of others’ work.
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 EB-1A appellate/motion decision; source-specific findings verified.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV072019_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | Nov. 7, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A AAO non-precedent decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | No standard final-merits determination; two initial criteria met, below threshold; separate sustained-acclaim analysis unfavorable. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Editorial-board membership did not establish actual judging of others’ work.
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 met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
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: Authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions were accepted.; pages: 2; 3; 4
claim: Editorial-board membership did not establish actual judging of others’ work.; pages: 3; 4
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: eligible_for_aggregation: True; eligible_for_individual_decision_page: True; reason: Compare only as a narrow researcher case; distinguish its separate acclaim discussion from formal final merits.; recommended_use: individual case page with source PDF citations; aggregation only if eligible and caveats preserved
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 2 — Substantive legal analysis/evidence; read in sequence and visually inspected.
PDF page 3 — Substantive legal analysis/evidence; read in sequence and visually inspected.
PDF page 4 — Substantive legal analysis/evidence; read in sequence and visually inspected.
PDF page 5 — Operative conclusion/order and disposition; read and visually inspected.
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
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.