AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision OCT302024_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The Director had found judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role met. AAO found the totality did not show a career of acclaimed work, sustained national or international acclaim, or top-of-field standing. Review activity was narrow, authorship consisted of one 2019 article with 76 citations not contextualized against peers, an invited 2023 talk was not shown to have occurred, and letters did not establish broad recognition; salary likewise was not contextualized against top-of-field peers.
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/remand decision with case-specific procedural and evidentiary analysis.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT302024_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 30, 2024 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition appeal |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal after Director found the initial three-criterion threshold met but denied on final merits; AAO dismissed the appeal after its own final-merits review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The Director’s three initial criteria were accepted, but the totality did not establish sustained acclaim, a career of acclaimed work, or top-of-field standing. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The Director had found judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role met. AAO found the totality did not show a career of acclaimed work, sustained national or international acclaim, or top-of-field standing. Review activity was narrow, authorship consisted of one 2019 article with 76 citations not contextualized against peers, an invited 2023 talk was not shown to have occurred, and letters did not establish broad recognition; salary likewise was not contextualized against top-of-field peers.
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 reached — p. 2 |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not reached — p. 2 |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | Not reached — p. 2 |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 2 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | met — p. 2 |
High salary or remuneration | Not reached — p. 2 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner, a management-consulting firm, petitioned for a beneficiary whose resume described a bachelor’s degree in electronics/communications engineering and director/associate-partner employment since 2018, preceded by enterprise architect and director/chief architect roles.; pages: 1; 3
claim: The Director found three initial criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role; the AAO proceeded directly to final merits.; pages: 2
claim: The beneficiary served on a recent evaluation committee and reviewed book chapters in 2013, but the record did not compare the judging activity with field leaders or show wide recognition from it.; pages: 3; 4
claim: The beneficiary authored one article in 2019 and had 76 citations; the AAO found no peer comparison establishing that number as top-of-field or acclaim-level attention.; pages: 4; 5
claim: The invitation to speak at an event in 2023 did not establish that the beneficiary actually spoke; two event articles did not mention him or the presentation.; pages: 5
claim: Recommendation letters described impactful methodology contributions and adoption, but did not show sustained recognition by the broader field or acclaim at the top level.; pages: 5
claim: The AAO found the evidence, including salary, insufficient to establish sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 5; 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
Awards research
Published material about the person 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
Entrepreneurship sector research
Computing sector research
Other Named Professions sector research
Threshold research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.