AAO research
EB-1A scholarly authorship — AAO decision NOV092017_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV092017_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. The record established scholarly authorship, but did not establish three criteria. Award recognition was not proven; association/judging claims failed; media evidence did not establish major media; trial proposals/clinical work did not establish contributions already of major significance; conference presentation was not an artistic display. (pp. 3–8).
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 | NOV092017_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 9, 2017 |
Classification / field stated in source | Clinical investigator in the sciences; record discusses clinical trials, oncology and claimed Parkinson’s treatment. |
Procedural posture | AAO review after Texas Service Center revoked approval of EB-1A petition; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; see cited pages. |
Final-merits status | No separate final-merits analysis because minimum criteria were not met; AAO gave adverse aggregate conclusion (p. 8). |
What the AAO decision addressed
The record established scholarly authorship, but did not establish three criteria. Award recognition was not proven; association/judging claims failed; media evidence did not establish major media; trial proposals/clinical work did not establish contributions already of major significance; conference presentation was not an artistic display. (pp. 3–8)
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 | Not met — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | 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: Highly useful clinical-research comparator for separating scholarly authorship from judging, original contributions, and proposed trials; cite source carefully because the decision includes specific procedural and medical-record facts. Individual case page or narrow clinical-research comparison page with citations and explicit nonprecedent status.
Editorial use note: Individual case page or narrow clinical-research comparison page with citations and explicit nonprecedent status.
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
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.