AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV172023_02B2203: Appeal dismissed (physical p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision NOV172023_02B2203: Appeal dismissed (physical p. 6). AAO found no third criterion. The director’s two findings (leading/critical role and high salary) remained; the appeal focused on original contributions, which failed because product/design work and articles did not establish distinct field-wide influence. Final-merits step reserved/not reached (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 | NOV172023_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 17, 2023 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A appeal; cybersecurity interaction designer. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; director accepted leading/critical role and high salary, rejected five others; AAO rejected claimed original contributions and dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (physical p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not reached as a separate Kazarian step because only two criteria were established; AAO reviewed the record in the aggregate and found acclaim/top-of-field not shown (p. 5). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found no third criterion. The director’s two findings (leading/critical role and high salary) remained; the appeal focused on original contributions, which failed because product/design work and articles did not establish distinct field-wide influence. Final-merits step reserved/not reached (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 met |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met |
High salary or remuneration | met |
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 case on product-design contributions: implementing employer product features and press/blog mentions do not alone establish field-wide major significance. Potential individual case page with threshold findings separated from original-contributions analysis.
Editorial use note: Potential individual case page with threshold findings separated from original-contributions analysis.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Computing sector research
Performance sector research
Threshold research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.