AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision SEP022009_01B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition denied. Review source status, procedural posture…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed; petition denied The AAO’s operative order dismisses the appeal; the stated merits and procedural basis is summarized above with page citations.
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 decision concerning an EB-1A Form I-140 petition and discusses eligibility for that classification.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP022009_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 2, 2009 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO nonprecedent decision on a Form I-140 petition for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability under INA § 203(b)(1)(A) (EB-1A). |
Procedural posture | AAO appeal from denial of an EB-1A petition for a senior research scientist; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; petition denied |
Final-merits status | The AAO finds the petitioner did not satisfy the three-criteria threshold; the conclusion evaluates acclaim but no separate final-merits determination is reached. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO’s operative order dismisses the appeal; the stated merits and procedural basis is summarized above with page citations.
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 considered — p. 4 |
Membership | Not considered — p. 6 |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — p. 13 |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 14 |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — p. 14 |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — p. 14 |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner’s field is experimental biophysics; he earned a Ph.D., conducted postdoctoral research and worked as a senior research scientist.; evidence_pages: 3; 9
claim: The AAO finds scholarly authorship met but published material, judging, original contributions and leading/critical role not met.; evidence_pages: 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14
claim: The appeal is dismissed.; evidence_pages: 15
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.