AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision AUG242022_01B2203

When filing EB‑1A petitions, you must supply concrete citation metrics and unmistakable proof that your work is an original, major contribution; vague statements or missing author attribution will not satisfy the criteria. Citation counts or other proof of scholarly impact.; Clear documentation that

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID AUG242022_01B2203 Decision date 2022-08-24 Outcome dismissed Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed No / not stated

Criteria Discussed

  • judging

  • original_contributions

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

Not stated in the extracted decision plan.

Criteria Rejected

  • judging

  • original_contributions

  • scholarly_articles

Core Lesson

When filing EB‑1A petitions, you must supply concrete citation metrics and unmistakable proof that your work is an original, major contribution; vague statements or missing author attribution will not satisfy the criteria.

Evidence Issue

  • Citation counts or other proof of scholarly impact.

  • Clear documentation that the petitioner’s contribution was original and of major significance.

  • Evidence that the petitioner performed formal judging of others’ work as defined by the regulation.

  • Evidence of a major, internationally‑recognized award.

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.