AAO research
EB-1A motions to reopen — AAO decision OCT062014_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT062014_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. The AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship, but found original contributions of major significance unproven, leaving fewer than three criteria. It noted peer review, articles, and co-authorship but found no demonstrated field-wide impact. (pp. 4–9).
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 | OCT062014_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 6, 2014 |
Classification / field stated in source | Sciences; cancer research / nanomedicine research associate |
Procedural posture | Appeal concerning motion to reopen and reconsider the denial; AAO appellate review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits stage not reached because fewer than three initial criteria were established; the AAO separately made an adverse aggregate assessment. (pp. 8–9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Appeal dismissed. The AAO accepted judging and scholarly authorship, but found original contributions of major significance unproven, leaving fewer than three criteria. It noted peer review, articles, and co-authorship but found no demonstrated field-wide impact. (pp. 4–9)
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 coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not 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 |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Create a source-cited distinction between research output and demonstrated field impact, with a caution that citations must be evaluated in context and at the relevant filing date.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.