AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision OCT162018_01B2203: Appeal sustained. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT162018_01B2203: Appeal sustained. AAO found three criteria satisfied and totality showed sustained acclaim and standing among the small percentage at the top of the field, based on research impact, citations, original contributions, peer review, and expert evidence.
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; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT162018_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 16, 2018 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability; field: nanotechnology / materials science research (stretchable electronics). |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial; Director found three criteria but denied on final merits. |
Operative disposition | Appeal sustained. |
Final-merits status | "reached and favorable; appeal sustained." |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found three criteria satisfied and totality showed sustained acclaim and standing among the small percentage at the top of the field, based on research impact, citations, original contributions, peer review, and expert evidence.
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 |
Original contributions of major significance | 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. 1–4; criteria/posture p. 2, merits analysis pp. 3–4, order p. 4.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong comparator for a research profile combining peer review, scholarly authorship, demonstrable technical contributions, citations and independent corroboration; not a citation-count-only rule. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Editorial use note: eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Cover; date and scientific field; Director’s adverse final-merits finding.
PDF page 2 — Identifies three accepted criteria and petitioner’s postdoctoral research context.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Corroborat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.