AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision Aug202012_01B2203

AAO decisions can contain internal contradictions; a sustained outcome does not guarantee that the petition actually met three of the regulatory criteria, so petitioners must independently verify that each required criterion is satisfied. Concrete evidence that the petitioner’s awards satisfy the re

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID Aug202012_01B2203 Decision date not stated in the extraction Outcome sustained Field or occupation Not stated in the extracted decision plan. Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • awards

  • judging

  • original_contributions

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • original_contributions

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • awards

Core Lesson

AAO decisions can contain internal contradictions; a sustained outcome does not guarantee that the petition actually met three of the regulatory criteria, so petitioners must independently verify that each required criterion is satisfied.

Evidence Issue

  • Concrete evidence that the petitioner’s awards satisfy the regulatory definition of sustained national or international acclaim

  • Verified documentation of a formal judging role (the AAO noted lack of evidence for actual service in that capacity)

  • Clear alignment of at least three regulatory criteria despite the AAO’s sustained outcome

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.