AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision OCT312005_15B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found awards, association memberships, published material, contributions, and authorship insufficient; the record did not show acclaim placing the petitioner at the top of the field at filing.
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: Complete printed AAO Form I-140 EB-1A source; identity and posture checked against opening page(s).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | OCT312005_15B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | October 31, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO concluded the record did not establish sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field standing at filing. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found awards, association memberships, published material, contributions, and authorship insufficient; the record did not show acclaim placing the petitioner at the top of the field at filing.
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 | |
Membership | |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 5 |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not considered — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner sought classification in the sciences based on reproductive-science research, including bovine fetal oocyte work.; pages: 2; 3
claim: The AAO found student awards/training support and association membership insufficient, and rejected claims based on published material, contribution significance, and publication/citation evidence.; pages: 3; 9
claim: The appeal was dismissed because the record did not establish the required acclaim at filing.; pages: 9; 10
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Membership research
Published material about the person research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.