EB-1AEducation and academiaIndividualDecided 2017Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG182017_01B2203
AwardsNot metExhibitionsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Spanish language teacher and specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in education. Petitioner claimed six criteria but provided insufficient documentation for each. Director found only two criteria met; petitioner failed to meet the required three. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding no extraordinary ability demonstrated.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner claimed but provided no evidence of major internationally recognized awards
- Exhibitions · Classroom photograph does not constitute artistic exhibition or showcase venue
- High salary · No comparison to other teachers or foreign language immersion specialists' salaries provided
- Leading or critical role · No evidence of leading or critical role; organization lacked established distinguished reputation
- Original contributions · Petitioner claimed but no supporting evidence demonstrating impact on field or major significance
- Published material · Missing dates and author information; publications not shown to be major trade or professional publications
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet three initial criteria; aggregate review does not support extraordinary ability level
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner claimed but provided no evidence of major internationally recognized awards |
 Exhibitions | Not met | Classroom photograph does not constitute artistic exhibition or showcase venue |
 High salary | Not met | No comparison to other teachers or foreign language immersion specialists' salaries provided |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | No evidence of leading or critical role; organization lacked established distinguished reputation |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner claimed but no supporting evidence demonstrating impact on field or major significance |
 Published material | Not met | Missing dates and author information; publications not shown to be major trade or professional publications |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to meet three initial criteria; aggregate review does not support extraordinary ability level |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.