AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision NOV282005_04B2203: Awards

EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV282005_04B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 6). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.

Decision summary: AAO decision NOV282005_04B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 6). The record did not establish qualifying awards, major-media coverage, major-significance contributions, acclaimed exhibition display, distinguished organizations/critical role, or commercial success. The decision distinguishes regional recognition, project participation, and evidence of broader field acclaim (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	NOV282005_04B2203
Decision date as printed	November 28, 2005
Classification / field stated in source	EB-1A petition concerning a Lithuanian visual artist/graphic designer/animator.
Procedural posture	Appeal of denial; legacy AAO dismissed.
Operative disposition	Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 6).
Final-merits status	Legacy aggregate merits discussion was adverse; the decision predates the later two-step formulation (p. 6).

What the AAO decision addressed

The record did not establish qualifying awards, major-media coverage, major-significance contributions, acclaimed exhibition display, distinguished organizations/critical role, or commercial success. The decision distinguishes regional recognition, project participation, and evidence of broader field acclaim (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 The identified regional award was not shown to be nationally/internationally recognized; other award receipt/attribution was unsubstantiated (pp. 2–3). — source PDF
Membership	Not coded — source PDF
Published material about the person	not met Some translations were incomplete/uncertified; the English article did not focus on the petitioner or establish major media (pp. 2–3). — source PDF
Judging the work of others	Not coded — source PDF
Original contributions of major significance	not met Letters praised the work but objective evidence did not show acclaimed, field-wide influence; film work was not established as a major contribution (pp. 3–4). — source PDF
Scholarly authorship	Not coded — source PDF
Artistic display or showcases	not met Four Los Angeles exhibitions were not shown to have resulted in acclaim or major national/international recognition (pp. 4–5). — source PDF
Leading or critical role	not met Distinguished reputation and petitioner’s organization-level role were not established; one film project role did not show a critical company-wide role (pp. 5–6). — source PDF
High salary or remuneration	Not coded — source PDF
Commercial success in the performing arts	not met No box-office evidence established commercial success, and the performing-arts commercial-success criterion did not fit the claimed visual-artist work (p. 6). — source PDF

Source-cited findings recorded in review

pp. 2–6

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Historical comparison only: translation quality, project versus organization role, and display/acclaim distinctions. Label as a 2005 legacy decision and do not present as current binding precedent. Publish only with prominent date/nonprecedent context; suitable for historical evidence comparison, not standalone current legal guidance.

Editorial use note: Publish only with prominent date/nonprecedent context; suitable for historical evidence comparison, not standalone current legal guidance.

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
Published material about the person research
Original contributions of major significance research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Performance sector research
Translat research
Coverage research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for NOV282005_04B2203