AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision AUG112005_07B2203

Provide thorough, translated documentation that clearly shows national or international acclaim for every EB‑1A criterion—award prestige, selective membership, major media coverage, and first‑hand judging activity—to avoid common denial reasons. Complete, certified English translations of award crit

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID AUG112005_07B2203 Decision date 2005-08-11 Outcome dismissed Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • awards

  • judging

  • membership

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

Not stated in the extracted decision plan.

Criteria Rejected

  • awards

  • judging

  • membership

  • published_material

  • scholarly_articles

Core Lesson

Provide thorough, translated documentation that clearly shows national or international acclaim for every EB‑1A criterion—award prestige, selective membership, major media coverage, and first‑hand judging activity—to avoid common denial reasons.

Evidence Issue

  • Complete, certified English translations of award criteria and documentation

  • Statistical information showing the rarity and prestige of the award

  • Evidence that the professional association requires outstanding achievement for admission (e.g., bylaws, selection criteria)

  • Circulation numbers or readership statistics demonstrating national/international distribution of the publications

  • First‑hand documentation (e.g., signed letters, official appointment letters) confirming the petitioner actually served as a judge

  • Readership or sales figures proving the book/articles have significant national or international impact

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.