AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision Apr142011_02B2203: medical research / obstetrics and judging/evaluation evidence pitfalls for eb‑1a

Peer‑review activity for a recognized international journal can satisfy the EB‑1A “judging” criterion, even when other criteria such as awards are not met. No documentation of selection criteria or recentness for the 1997 award, failing to show sustained acclaim; Insufficient proof of a leading or c

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID Apr142011_02B2203 Decision date 2011-04-14 Outcome motion_granted (final merits reviewed) Field or occupation medical research / obstetrics Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • artistic_display

  • awards

  • commercial_success

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • membership

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • judging

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • awards

  • leading_critical_role

  • membership

  • original_contributions

Core Lesson

Peer‑review activity for a recognized international journal can satisfy the EB‑1A “judging” criterion, even when other criteria such as awards are not met.

Evidence Issue

  • No documentation of selection criteria or recentness for the 1997 award, failing to show sustained acclaim

  • Insufficient proof of a leading or critical role in the claimed memberships

  • No evidence of original contributions of major significance

  • No published material about the petitioner in major trade publications

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.