AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision NOV182005_07B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Articles mentioning the petitioner did not establish major-media coverage substantially about her work; supervising staff was not judging; successful venue management was not shown to have field-wide impact; artistic-display criterion did not apply; leading-role evidence was old/uncorroborated; salary was not consistently shown above matched peers.
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 is an AAO EB-1A appeal/remand decision with case-specific procedural and evidentiary analysis.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV182005_07B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 18, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition appeal |
Procedural posture | Legacy EB-1A appeal; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Legacy decision; AAO made an aggregate assessment that sustained national/international acclaim at the very top was not shown, without a separate modern final-merits stage. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Articles mentioning the petitioner did not establish major-media coverage substantially about her work; supervising staff was not judging; successful venue management was not shown to have field-wide impact; artistic-display criterion did not apply; leading-role evidence was old/uncorroborated; salary was not consistently shown above matched peers.
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 | |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not met — p. 5 |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 6 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner sought classification as an Israeli food-and-beverage manager; petition filing date was December 10, 2003, because an earlier submission was rejected for lack of original signature.; pages: 2; 3
claim: Newspaper articles from 1995–2001 often described event venues and briefly identified her as manager, sometimes emphasizing age/appearance; major-media distribution and substantive aboutness were not shown.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Staff hiring, firing, and supervision were not shown to be judging outside normal managerial duties.; pages: 4
claim: Letters about the Place at the Sea described successful venue operations but did not show influence on other managers or major significance to the field; articles were several years before filing.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Food/beverage management was not established as visual art or culinary arts for the artistic-display criterion; comparable evidence was not justified.; pages: 5
claim: Past managerial roles were not corroborated by employers; evidence about the Place at the Sea role and articles was dated years before filing and did not establish sustained acclaim in subsequent roles.; pages: 5; 6
claim: Contracts showed pay at several Israeli venues; comparators were only two managers and did not establish consistently top-of-field salary.; pages: 6
claim: AAO found she was successful in the profession but not shown to have sustained national/international acclaim at the very top; appeal dismissed.; pages: 6
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.
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
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Other Named Professions sector research
Corroborat research
Coverage research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.