AAO research
EB-1A published material about the person — AAO decision SEP202019_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The decision dismisses the appeal. Its opening analysis says the threshold was met, but the specific criterion findings and conclusion identify only judging and artistic display as met and say the three-criterion threshold was not met.
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: Source face identifies an AAO decision on a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition. Field, posture, and final-merits distinctions are preserved in the source-grounded findings.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP202019_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 20, 2019 |
Classification / field stated in source | Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision under INA §203(b)(1)(A). |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Nebraska Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. The source has conflicting statements about whether the three-criterion threshold was met. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The conclusion states no formal Kazarian final-merits analysis was needed because three criteria were not met. The opening analysis on p. 2 conflicts by saying the petitioner satisfied the initial three-criterion requirement; the separate criterion findings and conclusion identify only judging and artistic display as met. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The decision dismisses the appeal. Its opening analysis says the threshold was met, but the specific criterion findings and conclusion identify only judging and artistic display as met and say the three-criterion threshold was 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 | Not considered — source PDF |
Membership | Not considered — source PDF |
Published material about the person | |
Judging the work of others | |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | |
Artistic display or showcases | met — p. 7 |
Leading or critical role | |
High salary or remuneration | Not considered — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not considered — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
"Source internally conflicts on whether three criteria were met and whether final merits should be reached (pp. 2, 8-9); hold downstream summary/publication until reconciled."
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner created theatre adaptations, provided screenplay/story consulting, wrote columns and film reviews, and served in arts organizations/festivals.; pages: 1; 3; 4; 5; 7; 8
claim: The AAO found artistic display met for adapted plays produced at a festival, and found judging met based on service as screenplay competition judge; it also found leading/critical roles for certain theatre/festival organizations.; pages: 3; 4; 7; 8
claim: Published material did not qualify where articles focused on productions/groups or quoted her as an expert; original contributions lacked wider field impact; columns and film reviews were not shown to be in qualifying major media or scholarly outlets.; pages: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6
claim: Leading/critical role was not met because the reputation element was not established for organizations where the petitioner held leading positions. The conclusion says three criteria were not met and no formal final-merits analysis was required, although the opening analysis says the threshold was satisfied.; pages: 2; 7; 8; 9
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: hold_pending_source_reconciliation
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
Performance sector research
Threshold research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.