AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR092025_03B2203

Generic claims about rigorous processes or membership are insufficient; EB-1A petitions must provide concrete, directly attributable evidence that meets the plain‑language requirements of each criterion. Direct evidence that the petitioner’s work was judged by recognized experts (judging criterion);

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR092025_03B2203 Decision date not stated in the extraction Outcome dismissed Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed No / not stated

Criteria Discussed

  • artistic_display

  • awards

  • commercial_success

  • high_salary

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • membership

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

Not stated in the extracted decision plan.

Criteria Rejected

  • artistic_display

  • awards

  • commercial_success

  • high_salary

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • membership

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Core Lesson

Generic claims about rigorous processes or membership are insufficient; EB-1A petitions must provide concrete, directly attributable evidence that meets the plain‑language requirements of each criterion.

Evidence Issue

  • Direct evidence that the petitioner’s work was judged by recognized experts (judging criterion)

  • Proof that membership was based on outstanding achievement and evaluated by experts (membership criterion)

  • Demonstration that contributions are original, realized, and of major significance (original contributions criterion)

  • Published material that directly discusses the petitioner’s achievements

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.