AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision AUG252020_04B2203: chemistry patent agent and original contributions evidence pitfalls for eb‑1a

When seeking EB‑1A approval, merely listing high‑impact publications or generic recommendation letters is insufficient; you must provide concrete, quantitative proof of the work’s major significance and detailed evidence of a leading or critical role. Concrete, quantitative evidence (e.g., citation

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID AUG252020_04B2203 Decision date 2020-08-25 Outcome dismissed Field or occupation chemistry patent agent Final merits discussed No / not stated

Criteria Discussed

  • high_salary

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • original_contributions

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Accepted

  • judging

  • scholarly_articles

Criteria Rejected

  • high_salary

  • leading_critical_role

  • original_contributions

Core Lesson

When seeking EB‑1A approval, merely listing high‑impact publications or generic recommendation letters is insufficient; you must provide concrete, quantitative proof of the work’s major significance and detailed evidence of a leading or critical role.

Evidence Issue

  • Concrete, quantitative evidence (e.g., citation counts, h‑index, download statistics) demonstrating major significance of the publications.

  • Detailed, independent expert analysis linking the petitioner’s work to a measurable impact on the field.

  • Specific examples showing the petitioner’s leading or critical role in projects or organizations.

  • Evidence that the petitioner’s salary is substantially higher than peers in the same occupation.

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.