AAO research
EB-1A appeal disposition — AAO decision OCT062009_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (see cited pages). Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT062009_03B2203: Appeal dismissed (see cited pages). AAO found two criteria met—original contributions and scholarly authorship—but not a third; aggregate evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. (pp. 6–8).
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_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT062009_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 6, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | Nanotechnology / physical-sciences research, including computational nanotechnology. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial of EB-1A petition; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (see cited pages). |
Final-merits status | Reached in the aggregate; adverse. AAO found petitioner was a postdoctoral research associate and not shown to be among the small percentage at the top of the wider field. (pp. 7–8) |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found two criteria met—original contributions and scholarly authorship—but not a third; aggregate evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. (pp. 6–8)
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 — source PDF |
Membership | Not met — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
(p. 3)
(p. 7)
(pp. 3–4)
(pp. 4–5)
(pp. 5–6)
(pp. 6–7)
(pp. 6–8)
(pp. 7–8)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong research comparator for citation/adoption evidence and the distinction between qualifying scholarly authorship/contributions and separate published-material criterion. Individual case page; retain legacy decision date and field scope.
Editorial use note: Individual case page; retain legacy decision date and field scope.
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
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.