AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision OCT022023_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT022023_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. AAO found judging and original contributions were not established. Mentoring was not judging work of others under the regulatory definition; patent issuance and client purchase of a chatbot platform did not establish major significance to the ERP field. The Director had found only the leading/critical-role criterion met; the threshold therefore remained unmet.
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT022023_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 2, 2023 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; field: business/enterprise-resource-planning software and entrepreneurship. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Texas Service Center denial; Director found one criterion met and no three-criterion threshold. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | "Only leading/critical role found met by Director; judging and original contributions not met; threshold of three criteria not met; no final-merits determination." |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found judging and original contributions were not established. Mentoring was not judging work of others under the regulatory definition; patent issuance and client purchase of a chatbot platform did not establish major significance to the ERP field. The Director had found only the leading/critical-role criterion met; the threshold therefore remained unmet.
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 | Abandoned or waived — source PDF |
Membership | Abandoned or waived — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met |
High salary or remuneration | not reached |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
pp. 1–4; accepted/contested criteria p. 2, judging/contribution pp. 2–4, order p. 4.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful comparator for distinguishing mentorship from judging and a product purchase or patent from field-wide major significance; do not overstate as general software rule. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Editorial use note: eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Computing sector research
Threshold research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.