AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision SEP062024_02B2203: Awards

EB-1A awards — AAO decision SEP062024_02B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.

Decision summary: AAO decision SEP062024_02B2203: Appeal dismissed (p. 6). AAO affirmed two criteria as met—published material and leading/critical role—but found only two criteria overall. The petitioner abandoned awards on appeal; association membership did not require qualifying outstanding achievements; original contributions were not shown to influence the field; new high-salary/comparable-evidence theories were not considered because raised for the first time on appeal. Aggregate acclaim remained insufficient (pp. 2–6).

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: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

Decision ID	SEP062024_02B2203
Decision date as printed	September 6, 2024
Classification / field stated in source	EB-1A business appeal; petitioner is an entrepreneur in real-estate development, with companies founded in his home country.
Procedural posture	Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; AAO affirmed the findings and dismissed (pp. 1–6).
Operative disposition	Appeal dismissed (p. 6).
Final-merits status	No separate Kazarian final-merits step because only two criteria met; AAO states aggregate record did not establish acclaim or top-of-field standing (p. 6).

What the AAO decision addressed

AAO affirmed two criteria as met—published material and leading/critical role—but found only two criteria overall. The petitioner abandoned awards on appeal; association membership did not require qualifying outstanding achievements; original contributions were not shown to influence the field; new high-salary/comparable-evidence theories were not considered because raised for the first time on appeal. Aggregate acclaim remained insufficient (pp. 2–6).

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	waived Director found it not met; petitioner did not contest that finding on appeal, so AAO treated the criterion as abandoned/waived (p. 2). — source PDF
Membership	not met Membership in the Bulgarian Investment and Construction Association was not shown to require outstanding achievements as a condition of regular membership (pp. 3–4). — source PDF
Published material about the person	met AAO did not disturb the director’s finding that articles from multiple news sources met the criterion (p. 3). — source PDF
Judging the work of others	Not coded — source PDF
Original contributions of major significance	not met Letters and assertions about real-estate research/legislative influence did not establish corroborated, realized field-wide impact (pp. 4–6). — source PDF
Scholarly authorship	Not coded — source PDF
Artistic display or showcases	Not coded — source PDF
Leading or critical role	met AAO did not disturb the director’s finding for roles in companies the petitioner founded (p. 3). — source PDF
High salary or remuneration	not met Director found it not met; new appeal-only investment/equity and comparable-evidence arguments were not considered (p. 3). — source PDF
Commercial success in the performing arts	Not coded — source PDF

Source-cited findings recorded in review

Page references are physical PDF pages; all physical pages were visually inspected in order.

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Strong example of waiver on appeal, two accepted criteria still falling below three, and new-claim preservation. Specific to Bulgarian real-estate-development entrepreneur; nonprecedent. Potential page focused on the procedural and evidence distinctions, with explicit citation to waiver and appeal-only arguments. No CMS edits or publication were made.

Editorial use note: Potential page focused on the procedural and evidence distinctions, with explicit citation to waiver and appeal-only arguments. No CMS edits or publication were made.

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
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Waiv research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for SEP062024_02B2203