AAO research
EB-1A scholarly authorship — AAO decision OCT242024_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed AAO agreed scholarly authorship, leading/critical role, and high salary met the initial criteria, but found that the totality did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. Published-material and original-contribution issues were not reached because three criteria were already met.
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 EB-1A appeal or related motion with decision-specific procedural/evidentiary analysis.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT242024_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 24, 2024 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition appeal or related motion |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal; initial threshold met through three criteria; appeal dismissed after formal final-merits determination. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Although three initial criteria were met, the evidence did not show comparative standing, sustained acclaim, or extensive field recognition. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO agreed scholarly authorship, leading/critical role, and high salary met the initial criteria, but found that the totality did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. Published-material and original-contribution issues were not reached because three criteria were already met.
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 | |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner was a principal product manager in human-computer interactive digital technologies, with prior work in legal/healthcare services, and intended to continue in the United States.; pages: 1; 2
claim: Director findings accepted for scholarly authorship, leading/critical role, and high salary; AAO declined to decide additional published-material and original-contribution claims at the threshold stage.; pages: 2
claim: Two ACM papers and a patent application had 47 cited references according to Google Scholar, but three documents over 12 years and no comparative citation-rate evidence did not establish top-of-field recognition.; pages: 3; 4
claim: Employer letters described successful launches, product management, and team oversight, but did not establish broader field recognition for those roles.; pages: 4
claim: High salary met the initial criterion, but comparative compensation evidence did not place the petitioner in the upper echelon or show acclaim from compensation.; pages: 4
claim: Articles did not establish major-media status or sufficiently focus on her; letters about patent and LLC-service contributions lacked corroborated field-wide acclaim.; pages: 5
claim: AAO dismissed after final merits, finding the record insufficient for sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field status.; pages: 6
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
Published material about the person research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Computing sector research
Public Service sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.