AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision OCT272009_02B2203: The AAO dismissed the appeal and did not approve the petition. (final page; see posture and outcome…
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT272009_02B2203: The AAO dismissed the appeal and did not approve the petition. (final page; see posture and outcome citations). The AAO upheld denial, finding the record insufficient under the claimed evidentiary categories and lacking clear evidence the petitioner would continue work in the area of expertise in the United States. (pp. 2-13).
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 | OCT272009_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 27, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A sciences petition by a biology PhD student/researcher. (pp. 1-2) |
Procedural posture | The Director deemed the filed appeal untimely, treated it as a motion to reopen, and affirmed denial; AAO dismissed the matter and addressed substantive eligibility and continued-work grounds. (pp. 2, 13) |
Operative disposition | The AAO dismissed the appeal and did not approve the petition. (final page; see posture and outcome citations) |
Final-merits status | Not reached as a distinct final-merits analysis; AAO said the antecedent three-category requirement was not met. (p. 13) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO upheld denial, finding the record insufficient under the claimed evidentiary categories and lacking clear evidence the petitioner would continue work in the area of expertise in the United States. (pp. 2-13)
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 — source PDF |
Membership | not met |
Published material about the person | not met |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | not met |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
No source identity/completeness hold. Material procedural caveat: the appeal was untimely and treated as a motion to reopen. Privacy-redacted historical nonprecedent decision.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Could support a procedural explainer and linked substantive case page, provided the appeal-versus-motion timeline is not simplified or conflated with ordinary appeals.
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
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Medicine sector research
Untimely research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.