MAR272025_01B3203Decided 2025-03-27I-140

The AAO dismissed an EB-1B appeal for a speech-language pathology professor because the employer failed to provide a…

Dismissed Useful for: avoid these mistakes
EB-1BField: speech-language pathology
The outcome

This appeal was not successful at this stage

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to submit a qualifying offer of employment predating the petition filing, and failed to demonstrate the beneficiary had three years of qualifying teaching or research experience.

In plain English

The petitioner, a university, sought EB-1B classification for a beneficiary working as an assistant professor of speech-language pathology. The Texas Service Center denied the petition for lack of a qualifying job offer and insufficient teaching experience. On appeal, the AAO agreed on both grounds: the only offer letter submitted post-dated the petition filing and therefore could not satisfy the requirement that initial evidence accompany the petition, and neither the I-140 form nor its cover letter constituted a valid offer letter to the beneficiary. As to experience, the prior employer's letter was vague about duties and did not establish full course responsibility, and the beneficiary's prior admission to a CBP officer that she worked as a speech pathologist (not a professor) further undermined the teaching experience claim. The evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) were not addressed by either party and thus not before the AAO.

What worked & what failed

What failed: The employer submitted the job offer letter after the petition was filed, which disqualified it as initial evidence. The prior employer's letter was too vague—it did not describe specific teaching duties or confirm the beneficiary had full responsibility for any course. The beneficiary's own admission to immigration officials that she worked as a speech pathologist (not a faculty member) at her prior employer further weakened the experience claim.

Takeaway: For EB-1B petitions, ensure a formal employment offer letter is prepared and dated before filing, and that experience letters from prior employers clearly detail specific teaching or research duties including full course responsibility, especially when experience was gained during a degree program.

For RFE responses & petition building

Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1B criteria.

Evidence that moved the needle

  • See summary above for details.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • The employer submitted the job offer letter after the petition was filed, which disqualified it as initial evidence
  • The prior employer's letter was too vague—it did not describe specific teaching duties or confirm the beneficiary had full responsibility for any course
  • The beneficiary's own admission to immigration officials that she worked as a speech pathologist (not a faculty member) at her prior employer further weakened the experience claim.
Find more EB-1B cases with similar evidence patterns →
How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

Assistant professor of speech-language pathology

Completed

Director — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2025-03-27

AAO decision — Dismissed

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to submit a qualifying offer of employment predating the petition filing, and failed to demonstrate the beneficiary had three years of qualifying teaching or research experience.

If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.

Authorities the office relied on
ChawathePetitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
Christa'sAAO reviews questions de novo.
ViswanadhaUSCIS's two-step analysis for outstanding professor/researcher classification is consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3).
KazarianDescribes the two-step evidentiary process for evaluating extraordinary ability and outstanding researcher petitions.
Matter of S-M-Statements in a brief, motion, or notice of appeal are not evidence and are not entitled to evidentiary weight.
USPS v. GregoryA presumption of regularity attaches to actions of government agencies absent clear evidence to the contrary.
Chem. Found.Supporting authority for the presumption of regularity for government agency actions.