AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision OCT022024_02B2203: Director’s decision withdrawn; matter remanded for new decision consistent…
Decision summary: The AAO director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for new decision consistent with AAO analysis (physical p. 6). AAO agrees judging and scholarly-authorship criteria were met, published-material and leading/critical-role criteria were not, and finds the Director inadequately explained the original-contributions denial; citation statistics and reference letters require fuller evaluation on remand (physical 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_appeal_remand_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT022024_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 2, 2024 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A; scientist researching plant pathology. |
Procedural posture | AAO de novo appeal from Texas Service Center denial; Director denied threshold of three criteria. |
Operative disposition | Director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for new decision consistent with AAO analysis (physical p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not reached; AAO directs that a final-merits determination be undertaken if Director finds three initial criteria met on remand (physical p. 6). |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO agrees judging and scholarly-authorship criteria were met, published-material and leading/critical-role criteria were not, and finds the Director inadequately explained the original-contributions denial; citation statistics and reference letters require fuller evaluation on remand (physical 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 coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Unclear; reserved — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
Citations use physical PDF page numbers; pages were read in source order.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Valuable remand/administrative-reasoning example about agency explanations, citation statistics, relative-field comparisons, and separating citations from published material about a person. Do not present original-contribution merits as decided. Publish as remand/procedural precedent with unresolved merits explicitly marked.
Editorial use note: Publish as remand/procedural precedent with unresolved merits explicitly marked.
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
Published material about the person research
Leading or critical role research
Medicine sector research
Threshold research
Remand research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.