AAO research
AAO EB-1A decision APR172026_01B2203
Even when the AAO finds a petitioner satisfies three of the ten EB-1A criteria, the case can be remanded for further review of the other criteria, so petitioners must provide complete evidence for all criteria they intend to rely on before appealing. Evidence for the remaining seven EB-1A criteria w
Decision Snapshot
Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR172026_01B2203 Decision date not stated Outcome remanded Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed No / not stated
Criteria Discussed
judging
leading_critical_role
published_material
scholarly_articles
Criteria Accepted
judging
published_material
scholarly_articles
Criteria Rejected
Not stated in the extracted decision plan.
Core Lesson
Even when the AAO finds a petitioner satisfies three of the ten EB-1A criteria, the case can be remanded for further review of the other criteria, so petitioners must provide complete evidence for all criteria they intend to rely on before appealing.
Evidence Issue
Evidence for the remaining seven EB-1A criteria was not considered.
No major, internationally recognized award was shown.
Insufficient documentation for leading_critical_role (finding uncertain).
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.