AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision OCT082019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT082019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. The decision rejected the two director-credited criteria, found no three qualifying criteria, and noted mixed pursuits without an identified common field.
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: The source is an AAO decision on a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition; comparison caveats preserve unusual field or procedural details.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT082019_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 8, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The decision says a formal final-merits analysis is unnecessary because the three-criterion initial threshold was not met; aggregate review is noted. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The decision rejected the two director-credited criteria, found no three qualifying criteria, and noted mixed pursuits without an identified common field.
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 met — p. 5 |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not considered — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | abandoned — p. 7 |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The AAO found the petitioner had not defined a coherent field encompassing the submitted journalism, stage-production, and award-organizing evidence.; pages: 1; 2; 3
claim: AAO withdrew favorable director findings for leading/critical role and judging; evidence was vague, inconsistent, or not tied to an identified field.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Membership and original contributions were not met; claims concerning artistic display and high salary were abandoned on appeal.; pages: 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria; aggregate evidence also did not show acclaim.; pages: 8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
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
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.