AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision OCT152013_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT152013_01B2203: Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). Judging and scholarly authorship met. Published-material claim failed because conference presentations/authored papers were not material about petitioner; original contributions lacked evidence of significant field-wide impact. Awards and membership were abandoned (pp. 4–6).
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 | OCT152013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 15, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition concerning an academic/researcher; source discusses a university project to develop a sweet liqueur from taro and scholarly work. |
Procedural posture | Appeal of denial; AAO reviewed de novo and dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 7). |
Final-merits status | No separate final-merits determination; fewer than three criteria were established, and the appeal was dismissed on the threshold (pp. 6–7). |
What the AAO decision addressed
Judging and scholarly authorship met. Published-material claim failed because conference presentations/authored papers were not material about petitioner; original contributions lacked evidence of significant field-wide impact. Awards and membership were abandoned (pp. 4–6).
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 | abandoned |
Membership | abandoned |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | met |
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
pp. 4–7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Useful narrow comparison for distinguishing published material about an individual from their own conference/paper authorship and for the difference between project funding and field-wide contribution. Confirm source date on page 1. Publish as source-linked summary and possible authorship/published-material comparison.
Editorial use note: Publish as source-linked summary and possible authorship/published-material comparison.
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
Medicine sector research
Teaching sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.