AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision AUG032016_01B2203

Petitioners must provide concrete, third‑party evidence that directly satisfies each EB‑1A criterion; generic work samples or vague reference letters are insufficient. No documentation of a nationally or internationally recognized award; No published material that discusses the petitioner in profess

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID AUG032016_01B2203 Decision date 2016-08-03 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

  • artistic_display

Criteria Rejected

  • awards

  • high_salary

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

  • leading_critical_role

Core Lesson

Petitioners must provide concrete, third‑party evidence that directly satisfies each EB‑1A criterion; generic work samples or vague reference letters are insufficient.

Evidence Issue

  • No documentation of a nationally or internationally recognized award

  • No published material that discusses the petitioner in professional or major trade publications

  • Letters did not demonstrate that contributions had a major impact on the field

  • Insufficient comparative salary evidence to show high remuneration

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.