AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR152021_03B2203

AAO requires recommendation letters to clearly articulate the major significance of the petitioner’s original contributions; vague or generic letters lead to denial of that criterion. recommendation letters did not adequately explain how the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance; no

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR152021_03B2203 Decision date not stated Outcome dismissed Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • original_contributions

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • leading_critical_role

  • published_material

Core Lesson

AAO requires recommendation letters to clearly articulate the major significance of the petitioner’s original contributions; vague or generic letters lead to denial of that criterion.

Evidence Issue

  • recommendation letters did not adequately explain how the petitioner’s contributions were of major significance

  • no documentary evidence establishing a leading or critical role

  • insufficient published‑material evidence to satisfy that criterion

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.