AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision NOV142005_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV142005_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. The petitioner met scholarly authorship but not three criteria. The AAO found he was a promising researcher whose publications had impact, but the record did not establish sustained acclaim placing him at the top of neuroscience at filing. (pp. 3–8).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV142005_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 14, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Sciences/neuroscience; neuroscience researcher studying glutamate receptors and synaptic processes |
Procedural posture | Appeal of California Service Center denial; AAO appellate review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | A final-merits determination was reached and was adverse: despite scholarly authorship and promise, the record did not establish sustained acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of neuroscience at filing. (p. 8) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The petitioner met scholarly authorship but not three criteria. The AAO found he was a promising researcher whose publications had impact, but the record did not establish sustained acclaim placing him at the top of neuroscience at filing. (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 |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
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 holds and limits
The decision notes that seven claimed publications, conference participation, review counts and patent applications lacked supporting documentation; preserve this evidence gap. (pp. 5–7)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: A source-cited researcher explainer can distinguish scholarly authorship from major contributions and show why contemporaneous citations and independent recognition matter.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.