AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision AUG082024_04B2203

Meeting three of the ten EB‑1A regulatory criteria is not enough; a petitioner must also prove sustained national/international acclaim and top‑of‑field status in the final merits analysis. Evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.; Documentation showing how the field views the petiti

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID AUG082024_04B2203 Decision date not stated Outcome dismissed Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • artistic_display

  • awards

  • original_contributions

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • artistic_display

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • awards

  • original_contributions

Core Lesson

Meeting three of the ten EB‑1A regulatory criteria is not enough; a petitioner must also prove sustained national/international acclaim and top‑of‑field status in the final merits analysis.

Evidence Issue

  • Evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

  • Documentation showing how the field views the petitioner’s scholarships/awards.

  • Major media coverage or letters of support that directly attest to top‑of‑field status.

  • Original contributions evidence (not addressed on appeal).

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.