Education
AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Education (Education), 2020. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Judging, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Awards.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 were counted. The criteria were enough to reach final merits, but on the totality of the evidence the petitioner fell short of the extraordinary-ability standard - 3+ criteria alone do not guarantee approval.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot counted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot claimed
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
Why these criteria usually go uncounted
The through-line of the appeals base: in 81% of decisions the AAO names the same problem - assertions not backed by sufficient evidence - and 45% of cases are lost at the final-merits totality assessment. Below is how each criterion not counted here fares across the whole base.
Awards
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.
The Education field in the database: 20 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 0 sustained, 0 remanded, 20 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:
| Criterion | In this case | Counted in the field | How objections were answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | not counted | 1 of 13 (8%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | counted | 10 of 13 (77%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 10 of 12 (83%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Education appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his claimed awards constituted nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of education, and did not present new facts or evidence to support a motion to reopen. He has not met the requirement of demonstrating at least three criteria for extraordinary ability.
The quote summarizes a fragment of the decision; the table above reflects the FINAL status of the criteria across all stages of the case (including ones conceded before the appeal), so the wording may not match one-to-one.
Full AAO decision of February 12, 2020 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 2 (Judging, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Awards.
- How did this appeal end?
- The appeal was dismissed - the denial stands. Most EB-1A AAO appeals end this way (~80% of our base).
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- Yes, but on the final-merits totality assessment the petitioner fell short - the criteria were only the entry gate.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:
Related
Similar appeals
- Educationappeal dismissed, 2023
- Education (Rhetorical Linguistics)appeal dismissed, 2020
- Professor (formerly)appeal dismissed, 2023
- Vocational Agricultural Teacherappeal dismissed, 2024
- Literature/Educationappeal dismissed, 2020
- Law Enforcement Training and Educationappeal dismissed, 2022
- Choreographyappeal dismissed, 2024