AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR082026_01B2203

Peer‑review or judging activities alone rarely satisfy the EB‑1A judging criterion; you must demonstrate that the role is prestigious, exclusive, and evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.; No major internationally recogni

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR082026_01B2203 Decision date not stated in the extraction Outcome dismissed Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • artistic_display

  • awards

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • membership

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • leading_critical_role

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • artistic_display

  • awards

  • original_contributions

Core Lesson

Peer‑review or judging activities alone rarely satisfy the EB‑1A judging criterion; you must demonstrate that the role is prestigious, exclusive, and evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Evidence Issue

  • No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

  • No major internationally recognized award.

  • Insufficient proof that judging/peer‑review role is prestigious, exclusive, or differentiates petitioner from peers.

  • Lack of documentation showing original contributions received sustained acclaim.

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.