AAO research
AAO EB-1A decision APR172019_02B2203
Published‑material evidence must be articles that directly profile the petitioner, include clearly identified authors, and demonstrate the publication’s prominence; original contributions must be shown to be widely adopted or of major significance in the field. Articles that do not directly profile
Decision Snapshot
Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR172019_02B2203 Decision date not stated Outcome dismissed Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed Yes
Criteria Discussed
judging
leading_critical_role
original_contributions
published_material
Criteria Accepted
judging
leading_critical_role
Criteria Rejected
original_contributions
published_material
Core Lesson
Published‑material evidence must be articles that directly profile the petitioner, include clearly identified authors, and demonstrate the publication’s prominence; original contributions must be shown to be widely adopted or of major significance in the field.
Evidence Issue
Articles that do not directly profile the petitioner do not satisfy the published‑material requirement.
Missing or vague author information for multiple articles.
No evidence that the spa design was widely adopted or regarded as a major contribution by the field.
Insufficient demonstration of the publication’s prominence or relevance to the petitioner’s work.
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.