AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision NOV142019_04B2203: Appeal dismissed (physical p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV142019_04B2203: Appeal dismissed (physical p. 6). The two retained criteria were judging and scholarly authorship; the third argued criterion, original contributions, failed because letters and citation records did not establish unusual influence/major significance in the field. Fewer than three criteria; no separate final-merits step (pp. 2–6).
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 | NOV142019_04B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 14, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A appeal; postdoctoral nanoscientist/physics researcher studying quantum-dot materials. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; director found judging and scholarly authorship; AAO found original contributions not met and dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (physical p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not reached as a separate Kazarian step because fewer than three criteria were established; AAO stated aggregate acclaim was insufficient (p. 6). |
What the AAO decision addressed
The two retained criteria were judging and scholarly authorship; the third argued criterion, original contributions, failed because letters and citation records did not establish unusual influence/major significance in the field. Fewer than three criteria; no separate final-merits step (pp. 2–6).
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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
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-cited findings recorded in review
Citations refer to physical PDF page numbers. Every page was visually inspected in source order.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful narrow comparison on the distinction between peer-reviewed publication/citation and proof that other researchers adopted or were significantly influenced by the work. Potential individual source-cited case page or research-impact comparison.
Editorial use note: Potential individual source-cited case page or research-impact comparison.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Medicine sector research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.