AAO research
EB-1A awards — AAO decision SEP282016_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. Review source status, procedural posture and the official USCIS PDF.
Decision summary: AAO decision SEP282016_01B2203: Appeal dismissed. AAO credited peer review of scholarly articles and authorship of seven professional-journal articles, but rejected claimed awards, membership, contributions and leading/critical role. Aggregate evidence still did not establish the required expertise/acclaim. (pp. 2–10).
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 | SEP282016_01B2203 |
|---|---|
Decision date as printed | September 28, 2016 |
Classification / field stated in source | Sciences/medicine; cardiologist researching Takotsubo cardiomyopathy |
Procedural posture | Appeal of Texas Service Center denial; AAO de novo review. |
Operative disposition | Appeal dismissed. |
Final-merits status | AAO expressly stated it need not provide the Kazarian-type final-merits determination; aggregate record nonetheless failed to establish required expertise. (p. 9) |
What the AAO decision addressed
AAO credited peer review of scholarly articles and authorship of seven professional-journal articles, but rejected claimed awards, membership, contributions and leading/critical role. Aggregate evidence still did not establish the required expertise/acclaim. (pp. 2–10)
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 |
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 | met — source PDF |
Artistic display or showcases | Not coded — source PDF |
Leading or critical role | not met |
High salary or remuneration | Not coded — source PDF |
Commercial success in the performing arts | Not coded — source PDF |
Source holds and limits
Do not characterize the aggregate discussion as a formal final-merits determination; the opinion says it need not provide one. (p. 9)
How this record may be used in research
Comparison scope: Cited case can answer whether peer review and publication alone establish extraordinary ability (two criteria were met, but petition still denied).
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
Awards research
Membership research
Judging the work of others research
Original contributions of major significance research
Leading or critical role research
Medicine sector research
Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.