Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?

Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 3 (Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role).

How did this appeal end?

The case was remanded: the AAO withdrew the decision and sent it back to the officer - not a final approval, but not a final denial either.

Did the case reach the final-merits stage?

No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.

All EB-1A appeals

case remandedMarketing20243 criteria counted

artificial intelligence (Al) technology and mobile telecommunications

AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa

Updated: September 10, 2026Author: Alina Kanametova

This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of artificial intelligence (Al) technology and mobile telecommunications (Marketing), 2024. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 3 were counted: Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 3 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.

EB-1A criteria in this case

Awardsnot claimed
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about younot claimed
Judgingnot claimed
Original contributioncounted
Scholarly authorshipcounted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolecounted
High remunerationnot claimed
Commercial successnot claimed
Comparable evidencenot claimed

The Marketing field in the database: 47 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 12 remanded, 34 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:

Criterion	In this case	Counted in the field	How objections were answered
Original contribution	counted	4 of 23 (17%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	counted	5 of 12 (42%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	counted	15 of 30 (50%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

How to read this case

The record of this case has no criterion marked "not counted", yet it never reached the final-merits stage. That happens when the dispute was resolved another way - for example, the case was sent back to the officer - and the AAO did not record a verdict on each criterion. Use the decision excerpt and the similar cases below.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The initial denial was based on the Petitioner failing to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found the Petitioner met at least three criteria (leading/critical role, scholarly articles, and original contributions) and remanded the case for a final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

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 April 30, 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: 3, counted: 3 (Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role).
How did this appeal end?: The case was remanded: the AAO withdrew the decision and sent it back to the officer - not a final approval, but not a final denial either.
Did the case reach the final-merits stage?: No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.

Terms in this case:RFE (request for evidence)final merits AAO (appeals office)

All EB-1A appeals O-1 / EB-1A criteria Analyze my case Which visa fits

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

Talent visa for Marketing What is the US talent visa

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.