Arts (Acting)
AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Arts (Acting) (Arts), 2020. 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: Awards, Published material about you, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Exhibitions.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 4 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
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot counted
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
Why these criteria usually go uncounted
The through-line of the appeals base: in 81% of decisions the AAO names the same problem - assertions not backed by sufficient evidence - and 45% of cases are lost at the final-merits totality assessment. Below is how each criterion not counted here fares across the whole base.
Exhibitions
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 226 cases and counted in 149 (66%). Counts showing work at artistic exhibitions, with venue, dates and proof of participation.
The Arts field in the database: 343 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 12 sustained, 52 remanded, 279 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | counted | 44 of 236 (19%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Published material about you | counted | 90 of 242 (37%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 17 of 41 (41%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Exhibitions | not counted | 130 of 160 (81%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Arts appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Director did not properly weigh all the evidence in a final merits determination, focusing heavily on a single scholarly article and failing to consider awards, media coverage, and the display criterion with correct standards. The decision lacked a full explanation of why the petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability.
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 December 31, 2020 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 4, counted: 3 (Awards, Published material about you, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Exhibitions.
- 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.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond: