AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision SEP122011_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition not approved (p. 17). Review source status, procedural…
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP122011_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition not approved (p. 17). Scholarly authorship met the plain-language criterion, but other findings and the final-merits analysis did not establish acclaim/top-of-field standing (pp. 6-17).
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_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP122011_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 12, 2011 |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A sciences petition by a researcher in biomedical science (record discusses PI3 kinase/AKT and therapeutic-prevention research) (pp. 2, 6-14). |
Procedural posture | Nebraska Service Center denial appealed; AAO dismissed (pp. 2, 17). |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; petition not approved (p. 17). |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits determination conducted and adverse; overall record did not establish sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing (pp. 14-17). |
What the AAO decision addressed
Scholarly authorship met the plain-language criterion, but other findings and the final-merits analysis did not establish acclaim/top-of-field standing (pp. 6-17).
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 | unclear |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | met |
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
No source integrity hold. Redacted; do not present any numerical citation count threshold as a general rule.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Explainer can contrast scholarly authorship meeting a criterion with the separate question whether a record demonstrates field-wide acclaim; preserve the decision’s dates and evidence limits.
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Original contributions of major significance research
Scholarly authorship research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.