AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision Apr172007_02B2203

Relying on a single strong EB‑1A criterion (e.g., a leading role) is insufficient; petitioners must provide convincing evidence for at least two additional criteria, and generic or local evidence will not meet the national acclaim standard. Evidence of sustained national or international acclaim bey

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID Apr172007_02B2203 Decision date 2007-04-17 Outcome dismissed Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • artistic_display

  • awards

  • commercial_success

  • high_salary

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • membership

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • leading_critical_role

Criteria Rejected

  • artistic_display

  • awards

  • commercial_success

  • high_salary

  • judging

  • membership

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Core Lesson

Relying on a single strong EB‑1A criterion (e.g., a leading role) is insufficient; petitioners must provide convincing evidence for at least two additional criteria, and generic or local evidence will not meet the national acclaim standard.

Evidence Issue

  • Evidence of sustained national or international acclaim beyond local media.

  • Persuasive salary comparison showing the beneficiary is among the top earners.

  • Documentation that membership requires outstanding achievements.

  • Scholarly or major‑media publications demonstrating impact.

  • Original contributions of major significance to the field.

  • Explicit discussion of at least three regulatory criteria in the petition.

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.