AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision OCT282009_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision OCT282009_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. The AAO credited judging and scholarly authorship, but rejected published material and original contributions; aggregate review found no sustained acclaim/top-of-field showing. (pp. 3–11).
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 | OCT282009_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 28, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A petition in biological sciences; petitioner was a postdoctoral fellow/researcher. (pp. 2–3) |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Texas Service Center denial; AAO dismissed. (p. 2) |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | Aggregate merits review explicitly found the petitioner was not among the small percentage at the very top; this historic decision predates the later standardized Kazarian framing. (p. 11) |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO credited judging and scholarly authorship, but rejected published material and original contributions; aggregate review found no sustained acclaim/top-of-field showing. (pp. 3–11)
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 met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
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 holds and limits
Petitioner/beneficiary identities are redacted. Historic AAO decision; not precedent.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: If cleared after editorial review, prepare a decision-specific source-linked summary with exact procedural posture, criterion states, dated page citations, redaction preservation, and non-precedent notice where applicable. Narrow research-scientist comparison of article authorship versus independent evidence of field-level contribution; do not merge with later cases without date and record caveats.
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
Judging the work of others research
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.