AAO EB-1A decision Aug092007_05B2203: philosophy/academic research and procedural dismissals in eb-1a appeals

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID Aug092007_05B2203 Decision date 2007-08-09 Outcome dismissed Field or occupation philosophy/academic research Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

• awards

• judging

• leading_critical_role

• membership

• original_contributions

• published_material

• scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

Not stated in the extracted decision plan.

Criteria Rejected

• awards

• judging

• leading_critical_role

• original_contributions

• published_material

• scholarly_articles

Core Lesson

EB-1A petitions are rejected when evidence is superficial or incomplete; petitioners must provide concrete, contemporaneous proof of judging, demonstrate major impact of original contributions, and submit all required documentation (including translations) at filing—post‑filing memberships are ignored.

Evidence Issue

• Objective proof of a major award.

• Contemporaneous documentation of judging activities (names of evaluated individuals, prestige of the panel).

• Evidence that leadership roles were leading/critical in the field.

• Membership bylaws or admission criteria showing the requirement of outstanding achievement.

• Evidence that original contributions had a discernible major impact on the field.

• Circulation data or other proof of national/international reach for publications.

• Full English translations of all scholarly articles.

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.