Direct answer: EB-1A Evidence Combinations: Individual role versus organizational reputation 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

• MAR202005_03B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Historical financial-analysis example on filing-date eligibility, professional memberships, routine management responsibilities, employer letters, comparable evidence, and organizational role. 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

• JAN312025_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Treat solely as a dated, fact-specific, nonprecedential AAO decision. Comparisons should align field, criterion evidence, filing-era regulatory context, appeal posture and whether a formal final-merits stage was reached. Do not aggregate across materially different professions or evidentiary records. Official decision PDF.

• SEP272019_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Potential swimmer/athlete comparison on awards, national-team membership, media coverage, and team role. Any aggregation needs more decisions and exact distinctions in level, event, and evidence. Official decision PDF.

• OCT212005_06B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Useful actor comparison for date-of-filing evidence, coverage about individual versus production, festival appearance versus acclaim, and actual sales/pay evidence. Official decision PDF.

• JAN232013_01B2203 — Motion to reconsider dismissed; July 26, 2012 decision affirmed and petition remains denied (p. 6).
  Procedural example explaining that reconsideration must identify a legal/factual error and cannot simply reargue the prior appeal. Eligible only for motion-process content, not as new merits guidance.

• MAY082019_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Soccer comparator on professional-league participation vs association membership, licensing vs selective membership, and team-level coaching testimonials vs field-wide original impact. Individual case page; two criteria met; formal merits not reached. Official decision PDF.

• JAN102023_02B2203 — Remanded
  Potentially useful as an individual case example only when paired with factually similar field, evidence, adjudication era and procedural posture. For the motion decision, explain that substantial criteria analysis is incorporated by reference; for the remand decision, state that only the leading/critical-role criterion was expressly found met and other issues remain for agency review. Official decision PDF.

• OCT142005_10B2203 — Dismissed
  A narrow historical example of weak exhibition documentation and the difference between captions/photos and proof of qualifying display; commercial-success analysis is inapplicable to non-performing-arts claims. Official decision PDF.

• FEB092009_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Narrow performing-arts decision potentially useful for distinguishing competition honors and local performance/teaching from sustained national or international acclaim. Treat as an individual nonprecedential case. 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

• MAY092006_08B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Individual academic researcher case demonstrating that publication authorship may meet one criterion while peer review and research impact fail separate criteria. Official decision PDF.

• SEP012006_02B2203 — Appeal dismissed.
  Historical trades/technical occupation comparator distinguishing training credentials and employment from awards, association membership, published authorship, and role. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations

• NOV072005_07B2203 — Appeal dismissed (p. 6).
  Useful arts comparison distinguishing public performance from qualifying exhibition/showcase and documented commercial success. Eligible for a narrow negative criteria summary; preserve distinction between performance activity and the regulatory criteria actually analyzed.

• MAY282009_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed
  Developmental biology research; distinguish promising future potential and routine scholarly activity from established impact and recognition as of the filing date. Official decision PDF.

• JUL212020_01B2203 — Appeal dismissed; prior denial affirmed
  Computer science research; narrow comparison on committee invitations versus actual judging, selective membership requirements, and evidence of contribution impact. Official decision PDF.

• OCT172017_01B2203 — dismissed
  Potential narrow comparison for EB-1A performing artists: display of work and leading/critical role can be met while awards, press, and judging fail. Do not generalize without comparing evidence type and procedural posture. Official decision PDF.

• FEB162011_05B2203 — Director’s decision withdrawn; appeal sustained and petition approved.
  Strong favorable sports-media example. Accurate content should anchor acclaim in multiple independent signals (national coverage, judging, broadcast responsibility, books and audience), not traffic alone. eligible_for_editorial_review_with_citations

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.