AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR232014_02B2203: psychology and common pitfalls in proving awards for eb‑1a

Provide concrete, verifiable documentation that any award is nationally/internationally recognized and given for excellence; avoid vague comparisons, and ensure you meet the three‑type evidence requirement for EB‑1A petitions. Concrete, verifiable documentation that any award is nationally or intern

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR232014_02B2203 Decision date not stated in the extraction Outcome dismissed Field or occupation psychology Final merits discussed No / not stated

Criteria Discussed

  • awards

  • judging

  • original_contributions

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

Not stated in the extracted decision plan.

Criteria Rejected

  • awards

  • judging

Core Lesson

Provide concrete, verifiable documentation that any award is nationally/internationally recognized and given for excellence; avoid vague comparisons, and ensure you meet the three‑type evidence requirement for EB‑1A petitions.

Evidence Issue

  • Concrete, verifiable documentation that any award is nationally or internationally recognized and awarded for excellence.

  • Evidence of original contributions of major significance.

  • Scholarly articles or other evidence that satisfy the "published material" criterion.

  • Fulfillment of the regulatory requirement of three distinct types of evidence.

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.