EB-1AEducation and academiaIndividualDecided March 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR252026_05B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A teacher seeks EB-1A classification claiming awards, contributions, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met by the service center. It rejected awards as lacking international recognition, rejected original contributions for insufficient evidence of major significance, and declined to reach a final merits determination because the petitioner failed the threshold requirement of three criteria.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Service center found criterion met; petitioner did not challenge this determination.
- Scholarly articles · Service center found criterion met; petitioner did not challenge this determination.
What was missing
- Awards · Honors from Kazakhstan government lacked evidence of national or international recognition for excellence in education field.
- Original contributions · Publications and citations insufficient to establish major significance in the field without additional evidence.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Service center found criterion met; petitioner did not challenge this determination. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Service center found criterion met; petitioner did not challenge this determination. |
 Awards | Not met | Honors from Kazakhstan government lacked evidence of national or international recognition for excellence in education field. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Publications and citations insufficient to establish major significance in the field without additional evidence. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Did not reach merits step because petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of eight alternate criteria. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.