AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision SEP032010_02B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved. Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP032010_02B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved. AAO found sustained acclaim based on expert evidence, peer review, publications, citations, and critical role; appeal sustained and petition approved.
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: EB-1A AAO appellate or motion decision; reviewed for source-grounded findings and procedural posture.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP032010_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 3, 2010 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A AAO decision |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; appeal sustained and petition approved. |
Operative disposition | Appeal sustained; petition approved |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits determination favorable; AAO found top-five-percent peer-review standing, sustained acclaim, and top-of-field achievements. |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found sustained acclaim based on expert evidence, peer review, publications, citations, and critical role; appeal sustained and petition approved.
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 coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | Not coded — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | |
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: Peer review for medical journals met judging criterion.; pages: 5
claim: Authorship of several published articles met scholarly criterion.; pages: 5
claim: Critical role as liver-transplant medical director at distinguished center met; UNOS approval and center reputation documented.; pages: 5; 6
claim: AAO found sustained acclaim based on expert evidence, peer review, publications, citations, and critical role; appeal sustained and petition approved.; pages: 6; 7
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: eligible_for_aggregation: True; eligible_for_individual_decision_page: True; reason: Strong favorable clinician-researcher case for integrated criteria and affirmative final merits; older adjudication, preserve its date/context.; recommended_use: Source-cited individual page; aggregate only with procedural and date caveats preserved.
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
Judging the work of others research
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.