Direct answer: EB-1A After three criteria: final-merits review in AAO decisions organizes source-reviewed AAO material around one research question and links readers to the underlying decision records.

This topic is a research lens across the source-reviewed corpus. Candidate keyword matches are discovery aids only; each linked record retains its own procedural stage and the exact issue decided. This page makes no claim that keyword matches are a validated cohort or a legal rule.

How the case examples were selected

The linked decisions are examples for topic discovery from the completed source-review matrix. They do not represent every matching record, prove a universal standard, or establish an approval probability. Open each source and compare the issue, evidence, date, and procedural stage.

Source-reviewed decision examples

• APR032024_01B2203 — Director’s decision withdrawn; matter Remanded for a new decision. This is not an approval or a final merits result.
  Useful as a contrast to dismissals: a remand after the AAO finds the initial threshold met leaves final merits and the ultimate outcome unresolved. Official decision PDF.

• MAR042019_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Strong individual research-scientist case for explaining why citation counts, journal rank, patents, or funding alone did not establish major significance. Official decision PDF.

• NOV142016_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Academic/business educator case useful for role-versus-authorship distinctions and for the proposition that publications alone do not establish major contributions or final merits. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations

• MAY212013_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Compare only with decisions sharing the field, relevant criterion, filing-date issue, adjudicative posture and whether final merits was reached. Preserve source-specific findings; these nonprecedent decisions do not predict outcomes. Official decision PDF.

• SEP272019_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Potential swimmer/athlete comparison on awards, national-team membership, media coverage, and team role. Any aggregation needs more decisions and exact distinctions in level, event, and evidence. Official decision PDF.

• NOV162005_28B2203 — The appeal is summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).
  Procedural comparison with short EB-1A appeal summary-dismissal decisions for failure to identify a specific legal/factual error or provide promised supporting materials; preserve each record’s actual mechanism. Official decision PDF.

• JUN192013_01B2203 — appeal dismissed
  Compare only with decisions aligned on field, criterion, procedural posture, legal era, and final-merits posture; preserve case-specific facts and avoid generalizing findings. Official decision PDF.

• JAN102023_02B2203 — Remanded
  Potentially useful as an individual case example only when paired with factually similar field, evidence, adjudication era and procedural posture. For the motion decision, explain that substantial criteria analysis is incorporated by reference; for the remand decision, state that only the leading/critical-role criterion was expressly found met and other issues remain for agency review. Official decision PDF.

• OCT212013_01B2203 — Motion to reopen dismissed as untimely and procedurally deficient.
  Procedural comparator for an untimely motion to reopen a withdrawn-appeal dismissal. Official decision PDF.

• AUG312021_01B2203 — Motions dismissed
  Procedural explainer candidate on EB-1A motions, not a merits comparison. Avoid representing this decision as a fresh criterion-by-criterion ruling; preserve its motion posture. Official decision PDF.

• JUN022022_02B2203 — Director decision withdrawn; matter Remanded.
  Procedural remand about reasoned adjudication and separation of eligibility elements, not an affirmative criteria holding. Official decision PDF.

• APR082019_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Useful as an individual, nonprecedential case example about the cited criterion findings and procedural outcome; avoid broad generalizations and compare only with factually similar field, criterion, evidence type, adjudication era, and procedural posture. Official decision PDF.

• FEB092009_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Narrow performing-arts decision potentially useful for distinguishing competition honors and local performance/teaching from sustained national or international acclaim. Treat as an individual nonprecedential case. Official decision PDF.

• MAY092006_08B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Individual academic researcher case demonstrating that publication authorship may meet one criterion while peer review and research impact fail separate criteria. Official decision PDF.

• JUL312008_01B2203 — AAO decision withdrawn; petition approved pursuant to district court order.
  fit: narrow procedural/court-order example; reason: May explain court-ordered approval implemented by AAO; not an ordinary AAO merits approval. Official decision PDF.

• DEC192005_24B2203 — Appeal dismissed (p. 6).
  Not a distinct aggregation source until duplicate record DEC192005_07B2203 is resolved. Hold from separate publication; use one source only after corpus deduplication and verify the canonical source.

• SEP192022_02B2203 — Motion dismissed.
  May support a narrowly framed explainer on the distinction between meeting three initial criteria and final merits, but label that the current disposition is a motion dismissal and distinguish prior findings. Official decision PDF.

• MAY282009_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Developmental biology research; distinguish promising future potential and routine scholarly activity from established impact and recognition as of the filing date. Official decision PDF.

AAO decisions are individual, nonprecedent records. Distinguish the Director’s findings, petitioner assertions, the AAO’s holding, remand directions, and any issue not reached. Historical decisions may apply an earlier legal framework; this research is not current filing advice.

Current framework and corrections

For the current regulatory framework, consult the USCIS Policy Manual. Read the source and corrections methodology before relying on an extracted summary.

Open the full AAO decision archive.