AAO research
AAO EB-1A decision AUG262024_02B2203: data science and eb‑1a appeal strategy pitfalls (abandoning criteria, new evidence)
On appeal, you must explicitly renew any previously denied criteria; new evidence cannot be considered unless the claim is revived, and you must provide concrete proof that publications appear in major media and that scholarly work has demonstrable impact. Failure to renew the published‑material and
Decision Snapshot
Field Value --- --- Decision ID AUG262024_02B2203 Decision date 2024-08-26 Outcome dismissed Field or occupation data science Final merits discussed No / not stated
Criteria Discussed
judging
leading_critical_role
membership
original_contributions
published_material
scholarly_articles
Criteria Accepted
judging
Criteria Rejected
original_contributions
published_material
scholarly_articles
Core Lesson
On appeal, you must explicitly renew any previously denied criteria; new evidence cannot be considered unless the claim is revived, and you must provide concrete proof that publications appear in major media and that scholarly work has demonstrable impact.
Evidence Issue
Failure to renew the published‑material and scholarly‑articles claims on appeal, so AAO did not consider them
Insufficient proof that the website qualifies as a professional, major trade, or other major medium
Lack of concrete evidence of impact or influence for the scholarly articles (e.g., citation counts, peer recognition)
No detailed description of the petitioner’s original contributions or their significance to the field
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.