AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR022019_02B2203

AAO may sustain an appeal even when the record appears to satisfy fewer than the three regulatory criteria, so petitioners should ensure clear, documented evidence for at least three criteria to avoid reliance on ambiguous approvals. The decision does not explicitly identify a missing third criterio

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR022019_02B2203 Decision date not stated in the extraction Outcome sustained Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • artistic_display

  • high_salary

  • published_material

Criteria Accepted

  • artistic_display

  • high_salary

  • published_material

Criteria Rejected

Not stated in the extracted decision plan.

Core Lesson

AAO may sustain an appeal even when the record appears to satisfy fewer than the three regulatory criteria, so petitioners should ensure clear, documented evidence for at least three criteria to avoid reliance on ambiguous approvals.

Evidence Issue

  • The decision does not explicitly identify a missing third criterion, creating an internal inconsistency between the met‑criteria count and the sustained outcome

How This Connects

This decision is part of Extraordinary's AAO EB-1A corpus. It is exposed as a structured decision card so readers, search engines, and AI search systems can connect the decision to broader EB-1A evidence patterns.

Source Note

Non-precedent AAO decisions are used as evidence examples. They are not binding authority and do not predict any individual case.