AAO research
EB-1A remand — AAO decision SEP242024_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; Director’s decision adopted and affirmed. Review source status, procedural posture and…
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP242024_02B2203: Appeal dismissed; Director’s decision adopted and affirmed. The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
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: in_scope_procedural_eb1a_decision. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP242024_02B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2024-09-24 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Appeal dismissed; Director’s decision adopted and affirmed. The decision identifies abandoned claims (awards and high salary) and specific deficiencies in membership, judging, published-material, original-contribution, and leading/critical-role evidence.; citation_pages: 1; 2; classification: Appeal dismissed_criteria_analysis_adopted; director_findings: Director denied because no major internationally recognized award or evidence satisfying at least three of ten criteria. On de novo review, AAO dismissed appeal and adopted/affirmed the Director decision. Petitioner abandoned awards and high-salary claims. Membership evidence did not establish membership based on outstanding achievements; judging record did not show organizations evaluated prospective members’ achievements; published material was not shown to be a qualifying regulatory publication; original-contribution evidence did not show major significance beyond incremental field recognition; leading/critical-role claim did not adequately show contribution to organizations significant to them. |
Operative disposition | {'outcome': 'Appeal dismissed; Director’s decision adopted and affirmed.', 'basis': 'The decision identifies abandoned claims (awards and high salary) and specific deficiencies in membership, judging, published-material, original-contribution, and leading/critical-role evidence.', 'citation_pages': [1, 2]} |
Final-merits status | Not reached |
What the AAO decision addressed
The review record does not provide a normalized explanation of the disposition. Consult the cited source pages.
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 | Abandoned or waived — source PDF |
Membership | Not met — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not met — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not met — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not met — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not reached — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not met — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Abandoned or waived — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not reached — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {‘fit’: ‘criteria_specific_nonprecedent’, ‘aggregation_valid’: True, ‘use’: ‘Potential substantive comparison page with precise claim limits: criterion-specific examples from an assistant professor case; explicitly nonprecedent and distinguish abandoned claims and the particular evidence.’, ‘do_not_claim’: [‘Do not treat an appeal dismissal or procedural rejection as approval or a substantive criterion precedent.’, ‘Do not infer individual criterion results beyond the exact states expressly described.’, ‘Do not treat a remand as approval or as resolution of the Remanded issue.’, ‘Do not treat an explicitly nonprecedent decision as binding authority.’], ‘caveat’: ‘No final-merits determination is stated. Criteria not discussed in the AAO decision are not assigned merits outcomes.’}
Page-level source trail
Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.
Open the official USCIS decision PDF. Page-specific citations were not available in the normalized row.
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
Remand research
Major Significance research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.