AAO research
EB-1A judging the work of others — AAO decision SEP242020_11B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: The AAO Appeal dismissed Director found judging and scholarly authorship met; AAO rejected original contributions as not majorly significant, leaving fewer than three criteria.
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: The source is a Form I-140 EB-1A extraordinary-ability decision.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP242020_11B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 24, 2020 |
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; AAO de novo review; appeal dismissed. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed |
Final-merits status | Only two initial criteria; formal final merits not reached. The decision offers aggregate advisory comments. |
What the AAO decision addressed
Director found judging and scholarly authorship met; AAO rejected original contributions as not majorly significant, leaving fewer than three criteria.
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 | met — p. 2 |
Original contributions of major significance | |
Scholarly authorship | met — p. 2 |
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-cited findings recorded in review
claim: The Director found judging and scholarly authorship met; on appeal the petitioner argued original contributions as an additional criterion.; pages: 1; 2
claim: Expert letters, citations, patents citing the petitioner’s work, conference participation, impact factors, and awards did not establish contributions of major significance to molecular biology as a whole.; pages: 3; 4; 5; 6; 7
claim: The decision expressly states it did not need to provide formal final merits after the threshold failed, while noting an adverse aggregate view.; pages: 7
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
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.