I. ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC, SCHOLARLY, ARTISTIC, ATHLETIC, OR BUSINESS-RELATED CONTRIBUTIONS OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE

     The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) requires a person to submit “extensive documentation” of sustained acclaim on the national or international level. To fulfill this criterion, AAO needs to see multiple documented evidence of significant contributions. AAO does not specify what evidence may be submitted, thus, presumably, anything that the person has done and is of major significance in the field can be submitted.

    For scientist it is routine to provide evidence on poster presentations, seminars, conferences, recommendation letters, and an award. In Re: Petitioner, (file number not released) (AAO). In a case where an athlete satisfied this criterion, the athlete presented evidence that he holds two world records. In Re: Petitioner, WAC-01-230-50932 (AAO)

    Regarding published articles, AAO requires that the articles be more influential than other articles published in the same field. In Re: Petitioner, LIN-00-263-53123 (AAO) It is not enough that the articles are beneficial or are original, because all published articles are beneficial or original in some respects. AAO writes, “It does not follow that every researcher who obtains an advanced degree, is published or is working with a government grant has made a contribution of major significance to the field.” Id. In addition, AAO does not consider the number of published articles to be a relevant factor.

    As for patents, AAO has stated that patents are not necessarily evidence of track record of success with some degree of influence of the field as a whole. Rather, the significance of patents or innovations must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id.

     When looking for evidence, it is important to remember that AAO considers evidence created after the filing of the immigration petition or are created for the petition to be less persuasive than the evidence naturally existed at the time of the petition.

    AAO systematically rejects certain evidence as being inadequate. AAO has stated that evidence of acclaim from the person’s collaborators and immediate colleagues as inadequate. In Re: Petitioner, LIN-00-263-53123 (AAO). Nevertheless, our law offices routinely use letters from the person’s collaborators and immediate colleagues to provide details about the person’s role in various projects.

    Complements that are not properly supported by accomplishments and explanations are generally ignored. As such, recommendation letters without proof are unable to support this criterion. There must be solid evidence.

    As a rule, AAO generally ignores future accomplishments. Evaluations such as “could someday lead to a better understanding of the causes of cancer” or “has potential to revolutionize the field” are ignored. AAO wants to see what has been done now. In Re: Petitioner, EAC-00-053-50381 (AAO)

    AAO wants to see solid and significant contributions in the forms of sustained national or international acclaim. AAO also wants unsolicited materials dated before the immigration petition to support the acclaim.