AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision APR232020_15B2203: machine learning / computer science and original contributions evidence pitfalls for eb‑1a

Recommendation letters for the original contributions criterion must contain concrete, detailed explanations of the petitioner’s impact; generic praise and post‑filing publications are insufficient. Specific, detailed letters that articulate how the contributions are of major significance and their

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID APR232020_15B2203 Decision date not stated in the extraction Outcome dismissed Field or occupation machine learning / computer science Final merits discussed No / not stated

Criteria Discussed

  • judging

  • membership

  • original_contributions

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • judging

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • original_contributions

Core Lesson

Recommendation letters for the original contributions criterion must contain concrete, detailed explanations of the petitioner’s impact; generic praise and post‑filing publications are insufficient.

Evidence Issue

  • Specific, detailed letters that articulate how the contributions are of major significance and their impact on the field

  • Publications whose titles directly reflect the claimed contributions

  • Evidence of widespread commentary or recognition from the field

  • Pre‑filing publications demonstrating the contributions

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.