Arts (Photography/Art Direction)
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 (Photography/Art Direction) (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, 4 were counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Exhibitions; not counted: Leading role, High remuneration.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 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
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionscounted
- Leading rolenot counted
- High remunerationnot counted
- 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.
Leading role
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 624 cases and counted in 256 (41%). Counted when the organization is known and the role is leading or key, per the org chart and letters.
High remuneration
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 346 cases and counted in 94 (27%). Counted when pay is compared to the professional and regional average, with a cited source.
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) |
| Judging | counted | 117 of 162 (72%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Exhibitions | counted | 130 of 160 (81%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | not counted | 45 of 161 (28%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| High remuneration | not counted | 11 of 80 (14%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Arts appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. While meeting the initial evidentiary criteria, the overall record did not establish a career of acclaimed work.
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 March 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: 6, counted: 4 (Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Exhibitions); not counted: Leading role, High remuneration.
- 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: