Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedScience20242 criteria counted

Education (High School Science Teacher)

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 (High School Science Teacher) (Science), 2024. 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, High remuneration; not counted: Awards, Original contribution, Leading role, Comparable evidence.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.

EB-1A criteria in this case

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.

Original contribution

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 642 cases and counted in 105 (16%). Typical AAO objection: "Original contribution: impact not shown". Counted when the contribution’s impact is shown: adoption, citation, use by others.

Leading role

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 624 cases and counted in 256 (41%). Counted when the organization is known and the role is leading or key, per the org chart and letters.

Comparable evidence

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 64 cases and counted in 1 (2%).

The Science field in the database: 155 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 7 sustained, 30 remanded, 118 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Awardsnot counted4 of 54 (7%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judgingcounted105 of 117 (90%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contributionnot counted33 of 123 (27%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Leading rolenot counted19 of 54 (35%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remunerationcounted9 of 32 (28%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Comparable evidencenot counted0 of 7 (0%)-

Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Science appeals.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to demonstrate either a major, internationally recognized award or that the beneficiary met at least three of the alternative criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the 'Teacher of the Year' award was deemed not internationally recognized, and the evidence for leading/critical roles and lesser nationally recognized awards was insufficient.

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 March 4, 2024 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
Criteria claimed: 6, counted: 2 (Judging, High remuneration); not counted: Awards, Original contribution, Leading role, Comparable evidence.
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?
No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.

The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:

Related

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

This is an anonymized public decision of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), shown for reference. Not legal advice and not a guarantee of your own outcome; every case is decided on its own facts.