AAO research

AAO EB-1A decision AUG292016_02B2203: education (teacher) and judging/evaluation evidence pitfalls for eb‑1a

Routine grading of assignments does not satisfy the EB‑1A ‘judging the work of others’ criterion; petitioners must demonstrate authority to evaluate, make decisions, and influence outcomes. No detailed description of duties showing authority to evaluate and make decisions that affect others' work.;

Decision Snapshot

Field Value --- --- Decision ID AUG292016_02B2203 Decision date not stated Outcome motion_dismissed Field or occupation education (teacher) Final merits discussed Yes

Criteria Discussed

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

  • published_material

Criteria Accepted

  • published_material

Criteria Rejected

  • judging

  • leading_critical_role

Core Lesson

Routine grading of assignments does not satisfy the EB‑1A ‘judging the work of others’ criterion; petitioners must demonstrate authority to evaluate, make decisions, and influence outcomes.

Evidence Issue

  • No detailed description of duties showing authority to evaluate and make decisions that affect others' work.

  • No evidence of reputation or influence of the committee for which the petitioner served.

  • Insufficient comparable evidence to satisfy additional EB‑1A criteria.

How This Connects

This decision is part of Extraordinary's AAO EB-1A corpus. It is exposed as a structured decision card so readers, search engines, and AI search systems can connect the decision to broader EB-1A evidence patterns.

Source Note

Non-precedent AAO decisions are used as evidence examples. They are not binding authority and do not predict any individual case.