AAO research
EB-1A original contributions of major significance — AAO decision SEP112015_03B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved (p. 6). Review source status…
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP112015_03B2203: Appeal sustained; petition approved (p. 6). AAO found judging and authorship criteria met and concluded original contributions were of major significance based on detailed independent expert letters, broad field application, citations and evidence of adoption/use. Three criteria met; final merits showed sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing (pp. 3–6).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: In scope; verified in source review. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP112015_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 11, 2015 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences; petitioner is a materials-chemistry researcher (p. 1). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; Director found judging and scholarly authorship; AAO evaluated original contributions and final merits (pp. 2–5). |
Operative disposition | Appeal sustained; petition approved (p. 6). |
Final-merits status | Not coded in the normalized review fields |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO found judging and authorship criteria met and concluded original contributions were of major significance based on detailed independent expert letters, broad field application, citations and evidence of adoption/use. Three criteria met; final merits showed sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing (pp. 3–6).
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 | Not coded — source PDF |
Membership | Not coded — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | met |
Scholarly authorship | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not coded — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"Source redacts institutions and specific materials; distinguish source-confirmed applications from inferred downstream impact."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
p1: Matter of R-A-V- cover; materials-chemistry researcher.; p2: Legal standard and appeal context.; p3: Peer-review criterion met; original-contribution criterion and expert evidence.; p4: Detailed letters on research applications and contributions.; p5: Broader field impact, citations, scholarly authorship and final-merits evidence.; p6: Acclaim/top-of-field conclusion and appeal sustained/order.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Strong researcher approval counterpart to the denials in this batch: detailed independent expert accounts plus concrete uses and field-wide relevance supported significance. Eligible for a detailed approval summary and careful comparison with similar materials-science cases.
Editorial use note: Eligible for a detailed approval summary and careful comparison with similar materials-science cases.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
PDF page 1 — Matter of R-A-V- cover; materials-chemistry researcher.
PDF page 3 — Peer-review criterion met; original-contribution criterion and expert evidence.
PDF page 4 — Detailed letters on research applications and contributions.
PDF page 5 — Broader field impact, citations, scholarly authorship and final-merits evidence.
PDF page 6 — Acclaim/top-of-field conclusion and appeal sustained/order.
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
Original contributions of major significance research
Medicine sector research
Final Merits research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.