AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision NOV262019_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO finds original contributions of major significance not established; fewer than three criteria, so final merits is unnecessary; aggregate review is also adverse.
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 identity-matched AAO EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | NOV262019_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2019-11-26 |
Classification / field stated in source | senior fellow at a university; toxicology and pharmacology researcher; EB-1A proceeding |
Procedural posture | Appeal from EB-1A denial; Director and AAO agree judging and scholarly-authorship criteria are met; AAO reviews original contributions. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO finds original contributions of major significance not established; fewer than three criteria, so final merits is unnecessary; aggregate review is also adverse. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO finds original contributions of major significance not established; fewer than three criteria, so final merits is unnecessary; aggregate review is also adverse.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 2 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
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: AAO agrees the petitioner meets judging and scholarly-authorship criteria.; pages: 2
claim: Citation counts, publication record, conference participation, journal rankings, and letters do not establish original contributions of major significance.; pages: 3; 4; 5
claim: AAO says a final-merits determination is unnecessary after the threshold failure; aggregate review does not establish sustained acclaim; 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
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
Medicine sector research
Teaching sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.