AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision SEP162005_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The AAO found the evidence insufficient under the claimed criteria and found no evidence that the petitioner’s businesses had the comparative industry success needed for comparable evidence.
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: Complete printed AAO Form I-140 EB-1A source; identity and posture confirmed on opening page(s).. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP162005_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 16, 2005 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of EB-1A denial; dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The AAO did not find the required three criteria; the closing aggregate discussion is not a formal final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The AAO found the evidence insufficient under the claimed criteria and found no evidence that the petitioner’s businesses had the comparative industry success needed for comparable evidence.
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 considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | Not considered — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — p. 7 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not considered — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 6 |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — p. 7 |
Commercial success in the performing arts |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner was a biomedical engineer who founded or led medical-device businesses.; pages: 1; 2
claim: The AAO found published material, original contributions, authorship, leading/critical role, and high salary not established; company revenues were considered as comparable evidence but were not shown to be extraordinary against comparable businesses.; pages: 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
claim: The AAO concluded the petitioner did not establish the claimed criteria or eligibility and dismissed the appeal.; pages: 7; 8
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible with caveats
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
Artistic display or showcases research
Leading or critical role research
High salary or remuneration research
Commercial success in the performing arts research
Entrepreneurship sector research
Computing sector research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.