AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision OCT192020_01B2203: Appeal dismissed; prior denial affirmed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed; prior denial affirmed AAO found only judging and scholarly authorship met. Membership, original contributions, and high salary were not met. The initial three-criterion threshold failed, so a separate final-merits determination was not required.
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: Source identity and classification checked on the opening page; final disposition checked on the final page.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT192020_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 19, 2020 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Nebraska Service Center revocation of an initially approved Form I-140; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; prior denial affirmed |
Final-merits status | AAO expressly states fewer than three criteria were met and it need not provide a final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found only judging and scholarly authorship met. Membership, original contributions, and high salary were not met. The initial three-criterion threshold failed, so a separate final-merits determination was not required.
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 | |
Published material about the person | Not considered — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 5 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: Petitioner was an IT project manager whose previously approved petition was revoked after notice and response.; pages: 1; 3
claim: AAO found judging and scholarly authorship met but membership, original contributions, and high salary not met.; pages: 3; 10
claim: AAO dismissed the appeal of revocation and concluded the petition lacked three qualifying criteria.; pages: 10
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
Entrepreneurship sector research
Computing sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.