AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV122013_03B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO sustained judging and scholarly authorship but rejected awards, published material, original contributions, and leading/critical role; only two criteria were met.
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 printed source is a complete AAO Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV122013_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 12, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Form I-140 EB-1A denial; AAO review; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO states that the evidence did not satisfy at least three criteria; it describes final-merits review as a subsequent step not reached here. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO sustained judging and scholarly authorship but rejected awards, published material, original contributions, and leading/critical role; only two criteria were met.
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 | |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 8 |
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: The petitioner sought classification as a periodontist/researcher based on awards, published material, judging, research contributions, scholarly authorship, and chief-resident role.; pages: 1; 2; 3
claim: The AAO found judging and scholarly authorship met; it rejected awards, published material, original contributions, and leading/critical role.; pages: 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9
claim: The AAO concluded fewer than three criteria were met and did not reach final merits; appeal dismissed.; pages: 9; 10
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
Waiv research
Coverage research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.