AAO research
EB-1A motion disposition — AAO decision SEP282005_08B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition denied. Review source status, procedural posture and the official…
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP282005_08B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition denied. 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 | SEP282005_08B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | 2005-09-28 |
Classification / field stated in source | Classification not stated in the normalized review fields |
Procedural posture | AAO_posture: Appeal from Texas Service Center denial. Petitioner asserted awards, scholarly authorship, high salary, and commercial success based on calligraphy work.; citation_pages: 1; 2; 3; 4; classification: appeal_or_motion_as_described_in_identity; director_findings: Appeal from Texas Service Center denial. Petitioner asserted awards, scholarly authorship, high salary, and commercial success based on calligraphy work. |
Operative disposition | {'outcome': 'Appeal dismissed; petition denied.', 'basis': 'Evidence did not establish the claimed criteria or sustained acclaim/top-of-field standing; submitted honor certificate lacked evidence of award significance, dictionary authorship was not established, and calligraphy sales lacked documentation. (pp. 3–4)', 'citation_pages': [1, 2, 3, 4]} |
Final-merits status | AAO found record did not show sustained acclaim or that petitioner was among the small percentage at the top of the field. (p. 4) |
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 | Not met — source PDF |
Membership | Not reached — source PDF |
Published material about the person | Not reached — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | Not reached — source PDF |
Original contributions of major significance | Not reached — source PDF |
Scholarly authorship | Not met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | Not reached — source PDF |
High salary or remuneration | Not met — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not met — source PDF |
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: {'eligible_for_narrow_comparison': True, 'fit': 'Older, case-specific comparison for evidentiary documentation of awards, authorship, remuneration, and sales; not modern precedent.', 'caveats': 'Nonprecedent decision; compare only the precise evidence and procedural posture reviewed.'}
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
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.