AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision SEP052013_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Judging and scholarly authorship were accepted. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions were abandoned on appeal; leading/critical role was considered and not met.
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: Source is an AAO EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition proceeding; procedural/fraud-limited cases retain their stated caveats.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP052013_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 5, 2013 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition appeal / motion, as specified in procedural posture |
Procedural posture | EB-1A appeal dismissed after two criteria; formal final merits not reached. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Two criteria were met, so formal final merits was not reached; the decision expressly treats the issue as threshold failure. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Judging and scholarly authorship were accepted. Awards, membership, published material, and original contributions were abandoned on appeal; leading/critical role was considered and not met.
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 | abandoned — p. 4 |
Membership | abandoned — p. 4 |
Published material about the person | abandoned — p. 4 |
Judging the work of others | met — p. 4 |
Original contributions of major significance | abandoned — p. 5 |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 5 |
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: Petitioner was a biomedical researcher; AAO applied Kazarian’s two-step framework and addressed only appealed criteria.; pages: 2; 3
claim: Awards, association membership, published material, and original contributions were abandoned because the petitioner did not challenge the Director’s adverse findings.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Peer-review judging and scholarly authorship were accepted as met.; pages: 4; 5
claim: Letters about laboratory leadership did not establish a leading/critical role for qualifying organizations as a whole; post-filing grants were not relevant to eligibility at filing.; pages: 5; 6; 7
claim: Only two criteria met; appeal dismissed and no final-merits determination made.; pages: 7; 8
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
Membership 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
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.