AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR222026_02B2203

Petitioners must provide concrete, article‑specific proof of major scientific significance and a documented critical role; relying on overall citation counts or vague claims is insufficient to meet the three‑criteria threshold. Specific evidence that the petitioner’s research provoked widespread com

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR222026_02B2203 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

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • judging

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • leading_critical_role

  • original_contributions

Core Lesson

Petitioners must provide concrete, article‑specific proof of major scientific significance and a documented critical role; relying on overall citation counts or vague claims is insufficient to meet the three‑criteria threshold.

Evidence Issue

  • Specific evidence that the petitioner’s research provoked widespread commentary in the field

  • Proof that the petitioner’s role was critical for a distinguished organization

  • Article‑specific citation impact demonstrating major significance

  • Evidence satisfying at least three of the ten EB‑1A criteria

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.