AAO research
EB-1A membership — AAO decision SEP282011_03B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition not approved (p. 16). Review source status, procedural posture and the…
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP282011_03B2203: Appeal dismissed; petition not approved (p. 16). Final-merits review found that evidence such as a travel grant, single membership, routine peer review, conference session chairing, patent applications, collaborator letters, and moderate publications did not show top-of-field standing (pp. 13-16).
Source limitation: The review record contains a source hold or limitation. Read the limitation below before relying on any case detail; unresolved facts are not treated as findings.
Scope classification from review: in_scope_EB1A_source_reviewed. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.
Decision snapshot
Decision ID | SEP282011_03B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 28, 2011 (day/month legible; year print is degraded but decision context/date visually consistent) |
Classification / field stated in source | EB-1A sciences petition by a research scientist (pp. 2, 15-16). |
Procedural posture | Nebraska Service Center denial appealed; AAO dismissed (pp. 2, 16). |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed; petition not approved (p. 16). |
Final-merits status | Formal final-merits determination conducted and adverse; aggregate evidence did not distinguish petitioner as among the small percentage at the top (pp. 13-16). |
What the AAO decision addressed
Final-merits review found that evidence such as a travel grant, single membership, routine peer review, conference session chairing, patent applications, collaborator letters, and moderate publications did not show top-of-field standing (pp. 13-16).
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 met |
Published material about the person | Not coded — source PDF |
Judging the work of others | met |
Original contributions of major significance | not met |
Scholarly authorship | unclear |
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 holds and limits
No identity/completeness hold. Date typography and some criterion details degraded; cite verified pages and hold uncertain states.
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Potential case explainer on the distinction between qualifying judging evidence and aggregate acclaim; reproduce the AAO’s comparison carefully and avoid treating patents or peer review as categorically insufficient.
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
Membership research
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.