AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision OCT082009_03B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO found scholarly authorship met in the petitioner’s earlier technical field but found the record insufficient to show eligibility or sustained acclaim in the proposed film-restoration work.
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: Opening page identifies an EB-1A petition and final page confirms appeal disposition.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT082009_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 8, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | AAO concluded the record did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing in the proposed area; it discussed the aggregate evidence in its concluding analysis. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found scholarly authorship met in the petitioner’s earlier technical field but found the record insufficient to show eligibility or sustained acclaim in the proposed film-restoration work.
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 | |
Membership | |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — p. 3 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 14 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — p. 3 |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 14 |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — p. 3 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — p. 3 |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner had a technical background in rheology/soil and pile dynamics and proposed continuing work in film restoration.; pages: 1; 2
claim: AAO found scholarly authorship met for the technical field but rejected the awards, membership, media, contribution, and leading-role evidence.; pages: 4; 14
claim: Appeal dismissed because eligibility and sustained acclaim in the proposed work were not established.; pages: 13; 14
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
Performance sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.