AAO research
EB-1A three-criterion threshold — AAO decision OCT062020_01B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT062020_01B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved. The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
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_procedural_eb1a_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT062020_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2020-10-06 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: De novo appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial. AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and the total record established sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing.; citation_pages: 1; 2; 3; 4; classification: AAO appeal/motion as described in source; director_findings: De novo appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial. AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and the total record established sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing. |
Operative disposition | {'outcome': 'Appeal sustained; petition approved.', 'basis': 'Petitioner established published-material, original-contributions, leading/critical-role, and high-salary criteria; totality showed a significant body of work and recognition in footwear design. (pp. 2–4)', 'citation_pages': [1, 2, 3, 4]} |
Final-merits status | AAO found sustained national or international acclaim and top-of-field standing based on the total record, including substantial footwear-industry recognition and successful design work. (pp. 3–4) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
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 reached — source PDF |
Membership | Not reached — source PDF |
Published material about the person | met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not reached — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not reached — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | met — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'eligible_for_narrow_comparison': True, 'fit': 'Strong narrow comparison for footwear design where a particular design was adopted at scale and corroborated by independent evidence.', 'caveats': 'Nonprecedent, fact-specific decision. Preserve posture and individual evidence; do not aggregate as a generalized rule.'}
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
Corroborat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.