AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision NOV172015_01B2203: AAO dismissed the appeal or affirmed the denial; the petition remained denied. (last…
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV172015_01B2203: AAO dismissed the appeal or affirmed the denial; the petition remained denied. (last page; see posture and outcome citations). The AAO withdrew the Director’s positive judging finding, and the petitioner did not establish the required three categories; AAO also said an aggregate review did not show the required expertise. (pp. 9-15).
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 | NOV172015_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 17, 2015 |
Classification / field stated in source | Nonprecedent EB-1A athletics petition by a martial-arts fighter who intended to compete in kickboxing and other martial arts in the United States. (p. 1) |
Procedural posture | Director denied; after director dismissed motions to reopen/reconsider, petitioner appealed and AAO dismissed. (p. 1) |
Operative disposition | AAO dismissed the appeal or affirmed the denial; the petition remained denied. (last page; see posture and outcome citations) |
Final-merits status | No distinct Kazarian final-merits determination because the initial three-category threshold was not established. AAO noted that aggregate evidence also did not show the required level of expertise. (pp. 14-15) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO withdrew the Director's positive judging finding, and the petitioner did not establish the required three categories; AAO also said an aggregate review did not show the required expertise. (pp. 9-15)
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 coded — source PDF |
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 | Not coded — 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
No identity/completeness hold. Privacy-redacted, nonprecedent decision; distinguish withdrawn Director findings from AAO conclusions.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: A useful source-linked case summary could show why product sales alone did not prove a field-wide contribution and why foreign-language media evidence needs reliable translations and audience proof.
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
Judging the work of others research
Athletics sector research
Performance sector research
Translat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.