AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV162018_01B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV162018_01B2203: dismissed. The AAO found scholarly authorship met, but awards, judging, original contributions, and leading/critical role were not established. It did not conduct formal final merits because fewer than three criteria were met; it separately observed that the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim.
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 source identifies an EB-1A petition appeal or motion. Motion decisions are eligible for procedural analysis, not as a new merits adjudication.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV162018_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 16, 2018 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition/appeal |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal; appeal dismissed after fewer than three criteria; formal final merits not reached. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO expressly stated it need not provide the formal final-merits determination because fewer than three criteria were met; aggregate observations followed. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found scholarly authorship met, but awards, judging, original contributions, and leading/critical role were not established. It did not conduct formal final merits because fewer than three criteria were met; it separately observed that the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim.
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 coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 5 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner was a professor in law/political science and appealed a denial finding only one criterion; she claimed awards, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role.; pages: 1; 2
claim: A China Scholarship Council government scholarship and related award claims did not establish a nationally/internationally recognized award for excellence; certified translations and recognition evidence were lacking.; pages: 2; 3
claim: Evidence of PhD dissertation review did not adequately establish actual participation as a judge of others’ work; the judging criterion was not met.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Letters and claimed code/research contributions did not explain the petitioner’s specific role or demonstrate major significance in the field.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Scholarly authorship in professional journals was supported; claimed leadership/critical role was not substantiated with detailed duties, organizational impact, or distinguished-reputation evidence.; pages: 5; 6
claim: Appeal dismissed; formal final merits was not reached because the initial threshold failed.; pages: 6; 7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Caption/date/classification/field/posture visually checked.
PDF page 7 — Final source page visually checked; operative order/outcome are pinpointed above.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Teaching sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.