AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision NOV292007_05B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO upheld judging as met, found original contributions not met, and withdrew the Director’s negative scholarly-characterization concern while finding scholarly authorship met. It found fewer than three criteria and made an aggregate acclaim assessment, without a separate 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 | NOV292007_05B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | November 29, 2007 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Fewer than three criteria were met; the older decision assessed acclaim in the aggregate but did not make a separate modern final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO upheld judging as met, found original contributions not met, and withdrew the Director’s negative scholarly-characterization concern while finding scholarly authorship met. It found fewer than three criteria and made an aggregate acclaim assessment, without a separate 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 | Not met — p. 3 |
Membership | Not met — p. 4 |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 4 |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 9 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not met — p. 9 |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 10 |
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 a postdoctoral scholar/researcher in biomedical science, including bladder cancer and urology-related research.; pages: 2; 3
claim: AAO found judging and scholarly authorship met; original contributions and leading role were not established.; pages: 4; 10
claim: AAO concluded that the evidence did not distinguish petitioner among the small percentage at the top of the field; appeal dismissed.; pages: 11
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
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.