Decision summary: AAO decision SEP222022_03B2203: dismissed. Three initial criteria were accepted but the totality did not establish sustained acclaim or 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: EB-1A AAO appellate decision reviewed from complete source PDF; no publication or CMS changes made.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

What the AAO decision addressed

Three initial criteria were accepted but the totality did not establish sustained acclaim or 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.

Source-cited findings recorded in review

• claim: The AAO accepted judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role; it did not accept original contributions of major significance.; pages: 2; 3

• claim: Citation evidence lacked meaningful comparison/context; the AAO noted that a highly cited article was a statistical study/review and found local letters, email solicitations and family-company relevance insufficient to show broad field impact.; pages: 3; 4

• claim: Formal final merits found the recognition predominantly local/regional and insufficient to establish sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field standing; appeal dismissed.; pages: 4; 5

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: eligible_for_aggregation: True; eligible_for_individual_decision_page: True; reason: Complete modern appellate source with criterion findings and formal final-merits analysis; source-cited, caveated comparison suitable.; recommended_use: Source-cited individual decision page and only narrow aggregation preserving date, field, posture, and threshold/final-merits distinctions.

Page-level source trail

Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.

• PDF page 1 — Caption, date, identity and appeal posture reviewed. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible.

• PDF page 2 — Legal framework, claimed criteria and initial findings reviewed. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible. Evidence reviewed: The AAO accepted judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role; it did not accept original contributions of major significance.

• PDF page 3 — Judging/authorship/role and contribution evidence reviewed. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible. Evidence reviewed: The AAO accepted judging, scholarly authorship, and leading/critical role; it did not accept original contributions of major significance. Evidence reviewed: Citation evidence lacked meaningful comparison/context; the AAO noted that a highly cited article was a statistical study/review and found local letters, email solicitations and family-company relevance insufficient to show broad field impact.

• PDF page 4 — Contribution limitations and final-merits evidence reviewed. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible. Evidence reviewed: Citation evidence lacked meaningful comparison/context; the AAO noted that a highly cited article was a statistical study/review and found local letters, email solicitations and family-company relevance insufficient to show broad field impact. Evidence reviewed: Formal final merits found the recognition predominantly local/regional and insufficient to establish sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field standing; appeal dismissed.

• PDF page 5 — Final merits conclusion and operative dismissal reviewed. Page rendered and visually inspected; legible. Evidence reviewed: Formal final merits found the recognition predominantly local/regional and insufficient to establish sustained national/international acclaim or top-of-field standing; appeal dismissed.

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

• Leading or critical role research

• Teaching sector research

• Threshold research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for SEP222022_03B2203