AAO research
AAO EB-1A decision APR032019_01B2203: anesthesiology (medical research) and eb‑1a original contributions criterion guide
Meeting only two EB‑1A criteria (e.g., judging and scholarly articles) is insufficient; petitioners must satisfy at least three criteria, and for the original contributions of major significance criterion they need concrete, independent evidence of impact such as high citation counts, authoritative
Decision Snapshot
Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR032019_01B2203 Decision date not stated in the extraction Outcome dismissed Field or occupation anesthesiology (medical research) Final merits discussed No / not stated
Criteria Discussed
judging
leading_critical_role
original_contributions
scholarly_articles
Criteria Accepted
judging
scholarly_articles
Criteria Rejected
leading_critical_role
original_contributions
Core Lesson
Meeting only two EB‑1A criteria (e.g., judging and scholarly articles) is insufficient; petitioners must satisfy at least three criteria, and for the original contributions of major significance criterion they need concrete, independent evidence of impact such as high citation counts, authoritative references, and demonstrable influence—not merely publication in prestigious journals.
Evidence Issue
Employer did not have a distinguished reputation required for leading/critical role
Citation frequency and impact were insufficient to prove contributions of major significance
Lack of independent, authoritative evidence that the work influenced the field
Petitioner satisfied only two of the ten criteria, failing the three‑criteria threshold
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.