AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision OCT272005_06B2203: Awards: not met; cited second-place student physics Olympiad award was undocumented and scholastic (p. 3).…
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT272005_06B2203: Awards: not met; cited second-place student physics Olympiad award was undocumented and scholastic (p. 3). Membership: not met; membership evidence did not show admission based on outstanding achievements (pp. 3–4). Judging: reviewed eight journal submissions, but AAO found this did not establish acclaim at the level sought (p. 4). Original contributions: not met; letters did not show major significance (pp. 4–6). Authorship: not met as the qualifying articles/record did not establish criterion (p. 7). Leading role: not met; reputation/role evidence insufficient (pp. 8–9). High salary: not met; no corroborating comparative wage documentation (p. 9). Appeal dismissed; record did not establish qualifying extraordinary ability. (pp. 2, 9).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT272005_06B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 27, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Researcher in the sciences; appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial. |
Procedural posture | Researcher in the sciences; appeal from Nebraska Service Center denial. Awards: not met; cited second-place student physics Olympiad award was undocumented and scholastic (p. 3). Membership: not met; membership evidence did not show admission based on outstanding achievements (pp. 3–4). Judging: reviewed eight journal submissions, but AAO found this did not establish acclaim at the level sought (p. 4). Original contributions: not met; letters did not show major significance (pp. 4–6). Authorship: not met as the qualifying articles/record did not establish criterion (p. 7). Leading role: not met; reputation/role evidence insufficient (pp. 8–9). High salary: not met; no corroborating comparative wage documentation (p. 9). |
Operative disposition | Awards: not met; cited second-place student physics Olympiad award was undocumented and scholastic (p. 3). Membership: not met; membership evidence did not show admission based on outstanding achievements (pp. 3–4). Judging: reviewed eight journal submissions, but AAO found this did not establish acclaim at the level sought (p. 4). Original contributions: not met; letters did not show major significance (pp. 4–6). Authorship: not met as the qualifying articles/record did not establish criterion (p. 7). Leading role: not met; reputation/role evidence insufficient (pp. 8–9). High salary: not met; no corroborating comparative wage documentation (p. 9). |
Final-merits status | No separate final-merits step; initial criteria and acclaim showing were insufficient. (pp. 8–9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
Appeal dismissed; record did not establish qualifying extraordinary ability. (pp. 2, 9)
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 met |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | not met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | not met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | not met |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
Hold for source-specific editorial review; adverse and non-precedent. Confirm exact paper-level findings before publishing.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If published, use a dated case-specific answer summary, procedural posture, criterion states supported by cited source pages, and direct USCIS PDF link. Do not present as precedent or imply the outcome applies generally. Scientific researcher example for awards limited to students, peer review, and separating research activity from demonstrated field impact. Do not pool with a specific scientific subfield absent a comparison question.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Medicine sector research
Corroborat research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.