AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR072026_01B2203: neurology and original contributions evidence pitfalls for eb‑1a

Generic expert letters that do not detail the beneficiary’s specific impact will not satisfy the original contributions or leading‑critical‑role criteria, and meeting fewer than three criteria leads to denial. Specific, detailed explanation of how the journal article constitutes an original contribu

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR072026_01B2203 Decision date not stated Outcome dismissed Field or occupation neurology Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • original_contributions

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • judging

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • leading_critical_role

  • original_contributions

Core Lesson

Generic expert letters that do not detail the beneficiary’s specific impact will not satisfy the original contributions or leading‑critical‑role criteria, and meeting fewer than three criteria leads to denial.

Evidence Issue

  • Specific, detailed explanation of how the journal article constitutes an original contribution of major significance

  • Clear documentation that the beneficiary played a leading or critical role with measurable impact

  • Evidence satisfying at least three of the ten EB‑1A criteria

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.