AAO research
Common EB‑1A Evidence Gaps Across Multiple Criteria (Published Material, Original Contributions, Leading Role)
The decision illustrates a set of common evidence gaps across several criteria, but offers no unique profession‑specific insight.
This page analyzes a 2010 AAO decision that illustrates repeated evidence gaps across multiple EB-1A criteria. The petitioner was dismissed for failing to satisfy any of their claimed criteria except high salary.
Central Evidence Failures
The AAO identified several recurring deficiencies in the petitioner's documentation:
Published Material Gaps:
An article from the Los Angeles Times that did not discuss the petitioner
No certified translation provided despite foreign language publications being cited
No circulation or distribution data for any cited publications
Original Contributions Gaps:
Letters and statements failed to explain how techniques were original
No documentation of why contributions had major significance in their field
Missing explanation linking work to broader professional impact
Leading/ Critical Role Gaps:
Petitioner's position within team hierarchy not demonstrated
No organizational charts or letters describing reporting structure
Position descriptions lacked evidence of decision-making authority
Membership Gaps
The petitioner also failed to adequately address:
The director's denial of membership in a professional society
Documentation proving the petitioner met all eligibility requirements for the claimed membership
What AAO Found Missing
Evidence Type Required Element Provided? --------------- ------------------ ----------- Publications Certified translations, circulation data ❌ No Original contributions Detailed impact documentation ❌ No Leading role Hierarchy proof (org charts, letters) ❌ No Membership Challenge to director's denial ❌ No
Common Mistake Patterns
This decision exemplifies a recurring pattern: applicants often submit documents that are relevant but insufficiently specific. Publications cited without certified translations and circulation data fail the "about you" test. Original contributions described in vague terms lack the documented impact required under 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(1)(i). Leading roles mentioned only by title, without hierarchy proof, also fall short.
Source Note
Non-precedent AAO decisions are used as evidence examples. They are not binding authority and do not predict any individual case.