AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision OCT042024_04B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Director found judging and scholarly authorship met; AAO agreed with those findings but found original contributions and leading/critical role not met. Fewer than three criteria; formal final merits reserved, with aggregate comments finding acclaim unsupported.
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 | OCT042024_04B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 4, 2024 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO expressly reserved a formal final-merits determination after the threshold failed; its aggregate discussion does not change the status. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Director found judging and scholarly authorship met; AAO agreed with those findings but found original contributions and leading/critical role not met. Fewer than three criteria; formal final merits reserved, with aggregate comments finding acclaim unsupported.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 2 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
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 completed a PhD in biological science in 2022 and worked for a clinical-stage biotechnology company when filing.; pages: 2
claim: The two criteria left undisturbed were judging and scholarly authorship; contributions and leading/critical role were not established.; pages: 2; 3; 9
claim: AAO reserved formal final merits and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 9; 10
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.