Direct answer: EB-1A Evidence Combinations: Independent corroboration and evidence-source quality organizes source-reviewed AAO material around one research question and links readers to the underlying decision records.

This topic is a research lens across the source-reviewed corpus. Candidate keyword matches are discovery aids only; each linked record retains its own procedural stage and the exact issue decided. This page makes no claim that keyword matches are a validated cohort or a legal rule.

How the case examples were selected

The linked decisions are examples for topic discovery from the completed source-review matrix. They do not represent every matching record, prove a universal standard, or establish an approval probability. Open each source and compare the issue, evidence, date, and procedural stage.

Source-reviewed decision examples

• OCT052020_03B2203 — Appeal dismissed (pp. 1, 7).
  Strong individual case page and comparator for AI research: citation counts alone, evidence of implementation/adoption, specific corroboration, reviewer service, and salary context. Keep field-specific; do not claim citations alone establish acclaim. Publish as individual AAO case analysis, with direct citations and balanced explanation that this is a nonprecedent decision. Official decision PDF.

• AUG262022_01B2203 — A tattoo artist's appeal was dismissed.
  What was and was not reached for awards, original contributions, and leading/critical role; detail and corroboration requirements in this particular record. Official decision PDF.

• MAY102006_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  High-value materials-science comparison for substantiated field-wide impact and independent expert corroboration; distinguish accepted major contributions from routine peer review and membership. Official decision PDF.

• JUL182024_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Useful entrepreneurship example on separating media evidence from award significance and verifying actual duties/impact behind advisory titles. Official decision PDF.

• JUN082021_01B2203 — dismissed
  Narrow engineering/data-science comparison on independent corroboration, citation benchmarks, and employer value versus field-wide impact. Official decision PDF.

• MAY292020_03B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Useful multimedia/product-design comparison on portal-level media evidence, project leadership versus organization-wide role, judging/display, and corroboration of product outcomes. Official decision PDF.

• MAR262021_03B2203 — Appeal dismissed; petition denied (physical p. 6).
  Strong case for explaining the two-step distinction: multiple criterion findings at step one still require evidence of sustained field-wide recognition at final merits. Individual case page; separate threshold criterion findings from aggregate final merits.

• JUL022020_01B2203 — motion_reopen_and_reconsider_dismissed
  Useful procedural motion comparison on filing-date evidence, post-filing achievements, documentary corroboration of judging, and event-organizer materials versus independent recognition. Official decision PDF.

• OCT162018_01B2203 — Appeal sustained.
  Strong comparator for a research profile combining peer review, scholarly authorship, demonstrable technical contributions, citations and independent corroboration; not a citation-count-only rule. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations

• JUN262009_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed (physical p. 7).
  Potential comparison within performing-arts commercial success and media-reach cases; keep singer/recording artist and cultural-event context explicit. Do not generalize the assumed sales figure as an independently verified fact. Publish with caveat that commercial-success criterion was assumed in petitioner’s favor based on the record, not independently audited sales.

• JAN112006_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Narrow baseball comparator for separating one recognized award from threshold eligibility, and translation, circulation, field-impact, and salary-comparison evidence. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations

• DEC182006_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Limited historical example for time continuity of acclaim, corroboration/translation of awards and display evidence; legacy decision. Official decision PDF.

• OCT172005_08B2203 — Appeal dismissed (pp. 2, 6).
  Narrow performing-arts comparison on award corroboration, stale press, routine performances, and commercial-success evidence. Keep the legacy and singer-specific context. Individual source-linked summary; narrowly eligible for singer/performance evidence comparisons. Official decision PDF.

• FEB222006_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Useful historic research-scientist comparison on authored publications versus major-significance contributions, prospective promise versus realized impact, and corroboration of recommendation letters. Official decision PDF.

• MAY272020_02B2203 — Appeal sustained; petitioner qualified (p. 5).
  High-value photography approval example: sustained, cross-channel recognition (award, major media, exhibitions, collections, books/textbooks) rather than a thin single-signal profile. Eligible for detailed approval summary and visual-arts comparison.

• MAY292009_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Narrow neuroscience researcher comparison on award corroboration, association bylaws, cited research versus material about the researcher, guest speaking versus judging, collaborator-heavy citations, and conference participation versus organizational leadership. Official decision PDF.

• OCT312005_11B2203 — dismissed
  Potential narrow visual-art comparison on competition-award provenance, association admission standards, post-filing evidence, and exhibition documentation, but do not count as a distinct decision until duplicate source IDs are reconciled. Official decision PDF.

• JUL232007_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Narrow historical comparison on proof of scientific validity and corroboration; highly case-specific and unsuitable as a general medical or scientific proposition. Official decision PDF.

AAO decisions are individual, nonprecedent records. Distinguish the Director’s findings, petitioner assertions, the AAO’s holding, remand directions, and any issue not reached. Historical decisions may apply an earlier legal framework; this research is not current filing advice.

Current framework and corrections

For the current regulatory framework, consult the USCIS Policy Manual. Read the source and corrections methodology before relying on an extracted summary.

Open the full AAO decision archive.