AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR292026_03B2203

EB‑1A petitions must provide concrete, verifiable evidence that each claimed achievement (e.g., judging, media coverage, publications) clearly demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and places the petitioner among the top percentage of their field. no proof that peer‑review activit

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR292026_03B2203 Decision date not stated Outcome 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

Not stated in the extracted decision plan.

Criteria Rejected

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Core Lesson

EB‑1A petitions must provide concrete, verifiable evidence that each claimed achievement (e.g., judging, media coverage, publications) clearly demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim and places the petitioner among the top percentage of their field.

Evidence Issue

  • no proof that peer‑review activities demonstrated elevation above most peers

  • media coverage not shown to be from a major outlet or to reflect top‑percentage status

  • publications not shown to be in top‑tier journals nor to have citations indicating top‑of‑field recognition

  • theories not demonstrated to be widely accepted or implemented in the field

  • insufficient documentation of a leading or critical role at a reputable institute

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.