AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision SEP222006_02B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed The evidence did not establish a qualifying award or three criteria; aggregate evidence did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing.
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: Printed decision identifies a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability proceeding.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP222006_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 22, 2006 |
Classification / field stated in source | AAO Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision; procedural posture noted below. |
Procedural posture | Appeal from Texas Service Center denial; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | The decision predates the modern express Kazarian step; it makes aggregate conclusions, not a separate formal final-merits determination. |
What the AAO decision addressed
The evidence did not establish a qualifying award or three criteria; aggregate evidence did not establish sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing.
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 | |
Membership | Not met — p. 5 |
Published material about the person | Not met — p. 5 |
Judging the work of others | Not coded — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — p. 6 |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — p. 7 |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — p. 7 |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The petitioner described the field as horse training and competition; the record relied heavily on reference letters, membership, ribbons/photos, competition claims, and one article.; pages: 2; 3; 4
claim: Awards evidence did not identify qualifying recognized prizes and included post-filing evidence; membership and published material did not meet the regulatory standards.; pages: 4; 5
claim: The letters did not corroborate major field-wide contributions; the article was not shown to be scholarly or comparable evidence, and asserted role/impact claims were insufficient.; pages: 6; 7
claim: AAO found the petitioner talented but not shown significantly above almost all others in the field; appeal dismissed.; pages: 8; 9
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion
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
Scholarly authorship research
Leading or critical role research
Athletics sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.