Arts (Painting and Design)
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 (Painting and Design) (Arts), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 3 were counted: Judging, Scholarly authorship, Exhibitions; not counted: Awards, Commercial success.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 3 were counted. The criteria were enough to reach final merits, but on the totality of the evidence the petitioner fell short of the extraordinary-ability standard - 3+ criteria alone do not guarantee approval.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot counted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot claimed
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionscounted
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot counted
- 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.
Awards
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.
Commercial success
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 81 cases and counted in 9 (11%). Counts commercial success in the performing arts with numbers: box office, sales, charts.
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 | not counted | 44 of 236 (19%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | counted | 117 of 162 (72%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 17 of 41 (41%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Exhibitions | counted | 130 of 160 (81%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Commercial success | not counted | 6 of 53 (11%) | - |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Arts appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Evidence of awards lacked prestige, publications had limited reach, and overall achievements 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 February 3, 2021 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 5, counted: 3 (Judging, Scholarly authorship, Exhibitions); not counted: Awards, Commercial success.
- How did this appeal end?
- The appeal was dismissed - the denial stands. Most EB-1A AAO appeals end this way (~80% of our base).
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- Yes, but on the final-merits totality assessment the petitioner fell short - the criteria were only the entry gate.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond: