Direct answer: EB-1A Evidence Combinations: Originality versus major significance 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

• MAR042019_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Strong individual research-scientist case for explaining why citation counts, journal rank, patents, or funding alone did not establish major significance. Official decision PDF.

• NOV142016_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Academic/business educator case useful for role-versus-authorship distinctions and for the proposition that publications alone do not establish major contributions or final merits. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations

• FEB022023_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Narrow engineering example distinguishing product participation/invention evidence from individually attributable awards and major field impact. Official decision PDF.

• JUL112018_02B2203 — Motion to reopen denied.
  Procedural motion example about association bylaws, evidence of art-world recognition, and distinction between intended exhibitions and demonstrated display. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations

• JAN192016_01B2203 — Motion to reopen denied; motion to reconsider denied; prior appeal decision affirmed and petition remains denied (p. 6).
  Useful procedural and evidence example about motions and why potential impact, aggregate citations, or unpublished work do not establish major significance by filing date. Eligible only as clearly labeled motion-procedure content; do not present as a fresh merits decision or re-adjudication of all criteria.

• JUL252016_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Narrow researcher comparison for citation and testimonial evidence of original contributions, with explicit caveat that the appeal narrowed the issues and other claims were not adjudicated anew. Official decision PDF.

• MAR012024_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Current comparator for research impact: citation counts/journal prestige alone do not establish major significance; tie evidence to realized field impact and source records. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations

• FEB242006_01B2203 — Appeal sustained; petition approved; Director’s decision withdrawn (p. 6).
  Strong positive comparison for industrial technology contributions supported by objective adoption, national awards, standards and role evidence. Eligible for a detailed positive case summary grounded in the unusually concrete adoption and award evidence; retain historical context and precise criterion findings.

• SEP242018_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Narrow comparison for research/analytics cases addressing citations and patents versus major significance, scholarly authorship, employer impact, and occupation-appropriate salary comparisons. Official decision PDF.

• SEP072005_20B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Narrow visual-art example on award provenance, published coverage, contribution evidence, and exhibitions. Avoid suggesting mere museum employment or work presence proves qualifying display. Official decision PDF.

• SEP112015_03B2203 — Appeal sustained; petition approved (p. 6).
  Strong researcher approval counterpart to the denials in this batch: detailed independent expert accounts plus concrete uses and field-wide relevance supported significance. Eligible for a detailed approval summary and careful comparison with similar materials-science cases.

• MAY252017_01B2203 — Appeal sustained; petitioner qualifies for EB-1A classification.
  Strong research/science approval for the combination of manuscript judging, authorship, citation impact, and major contributions; different evidentiary factors should stay distinct. Official decision PDF.

• APR112023_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Data engineering and business-intelligence work; a narrow example distinguishing routine workplace judging from contributions of major significance and reserved issues. Official decision PDF.

• FEB012023_03B2203 — Director decision withdrawn and matter Remanded.
  Strong contribution comparator when independent evidence documents implementation/adoption and field impact; remand is not an approval. Eligible for source-grounded individual decision page only with explicit procedural posture, criterion-specific findings, final-merits status, and page citations; do not imply approval where AAO Remanded or confuse prior motion findings with current adjudication. Official decision PDF.

• JAN082025_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed (physical p. 5).
  Strong comparison for researcher citation evidence: distinguish authorship and originality from major significance; cite the specific problems with broad fields, unreliable percentile tables, and generalized recommendation letters. Publish as an evidence-method decision with citations to the separate scholarly-authorship and original-contribution criteria.

• MAY152018_03B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Useful humanities case distinguishing media about the beneficiary, authored books, and claimed intellectual impact; record-specific and denial. Official decision PDF.

• JUL152005_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed; prior denial affirmed
  Narrow comparison for biomedical research: publication counts and letters versus independent evidence of citation/field impact, and patent evidence versus major significance. Official decision PDF.

• NOV092017_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed; see cited pages.
  Highly useful clinical-research comparator for separating scholarly authorship from judging, original contributions, and proposed trials; cite source carefully because the decision includes specific procedural and medical-record facts. Individual case page or narrow clinical-research comparison page with citations and explicit nonprecedent status. 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.