AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision SEP022005_12B2203: dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP022005_12B2203: dismissed. Evidence did not establish three qualifying criteria, sustained acclaim, continued work, or prospective benefit. Award translations were uncertified; awards lacked national/international significance; troupe reputation and inconsistent work history were not resolved.
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: Caption identifies an INA 203(b)(1)(A) extraordinary-ability appeal.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP022005_12B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | Sep. 2, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Legacy EB-1A appeal |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Vermont Service Center denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | dismissed |
Final-merits status | Legacy decision evaluated the total record and found no sustained acclaim/top-of-field showing. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Evidence did not establish three qualifying criteria, sustained acclaim, continued work, or prospective benefit. Award translations were uncertified; awards lacked national/international significance; troupe reputation and inconsistent work history were not resolved.
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 — p. 3 |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not coded — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not met — p. 6 |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 5 |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The decision reviewed nine claimed Peking Opera awards; translations were uncertified and several appeared local/provincial, with insufficient competition-scope evidence.; pages: 3
claim: AAO found source evidence did not establish qualifying acclaim; record was ambiguous about acclaim in China and showed no U.S. performances after arrival in 1999.; pages: 5; 6
claim: The record conflicted: petitioner claimed long-term professional opera-troupe work, while her signed asylum application listed hospital technician as occupation; source also identifies inconsistent start dates.; pages: 5
claim: AAO found no adequate evidence of sustained acclaim, top-of-field standing, or continued work; appeal dismissed.; pages: 6; 7
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
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
Performance sector research
Translat research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.