AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR112016_01B2203

Citations in review articles or books that merely mention a petitioner’s work do not satisfy the EB‑1A Published Material criterion; original contributions must be shown to have major significance with concrete impact evidence. Direct evidence that citations demonstrate the petitioner’s own publishe

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR112016_01B2203 Decision date not stated in the extraction Outcome motion_dismissed Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed No / not stated

Criteria Discussed

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • judging

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • published_material

  • original_contributions

  • leading_critical_role

Core Lesson

Citations in review articles or books that merely mention a petitioner’s work do not satisfy the EB‑1A Published Material criterion; original contributions must be shown to have major significance with concrete impact evidence.

Evidence Issue

  • Direct evidence that citations demonstrate the petitioner’s own published material

  • Concrete examples of the petitioner’s original contributions having major significance

  • Evidence of a leading or critical role in a distinguished organization

  • Demonstration of sustained national or international acclaim beyond generic references

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.