AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV212005_10B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The decision addresses only criteria claimed in the record. It found the discussed awards, published material, original contributions, and artistic display evidence insufficient; it makes an overall acclaim assessment but has no distinct modern final-merits determination.
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: Complete printed AAO Form I-140 EB-1A source; identity and posture checked against opening page(s).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV212005_10B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 21, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Legacy AAO appeal of Vermont Service Center EB-1A denial; dismissed without prejudice to filing a new petition. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | No separate modern final-merits determination; the legacy decision concluded the evidence did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The decision addresses only criteria claimed in the record. It found the discussed awards, published material, original contributions, and artistic display evidence insufficient; it makes an overall acclaim assessment but has no distinct modern final-merits determination.
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 considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner was an emerging visual artist; the appeal concerned an EB-1A denial.; pages: 1; 2
claim: Fellowships/residencies were not shown to be qualifying nationally or internationally recognized awards; claimed media, contributions, and display evidence was insufficient.; pages: 3; 10
claim: Appeal dismissed without prejudice to a new petition with requisite evidence.; pages: 10
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Performance sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.