AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision OCT042005_13B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found insufficient awards, membership, published material, judging, contributions, authorship, leading-role, and salary evidence; fewer than three criteria.
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 confirmed on opening page(s).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT042005_13B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 4, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of California Service Center EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The decision concludes that the record did not establish the threshold criteria; its aggregate conclusion is not coded as a reached formal final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found insufficient awards, membership, published material, judging, contributions, authorship, leading-role, and salary evidence; fewer than three criteria.
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 | |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 8 |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 9 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner was an assistant professor in computer science and submitted evidence concerning awards, associations, media coverage, judging, contributions, scholarly authorship, organizational role, and salary.; pages: 2; 3; 4
claim: The AAO rejected the asserted awards, membership, published-material, judging, original-contribution, scholarly-authorship, leading-role, and high-salary criteria.; pages: 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9
claim: The AAO found the petitioner had not established the required criteria or sustained acclaim and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 9
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
Computing sector research
Teaching sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.