Arts (Singing)
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 (Singing) (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: Awards, Published material about you, Exhibitions; not counted: Membership, Judging, Leading role, High remuneration, Commercial success.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 8 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
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot counted
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingnot counted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionscounted
- Leading rolenot counted
- High remunerationnot counted
- 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.
Membership
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.
Judging
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 659 cases and counted in 491 (75%). Typical AAO objection: "Judging not actually performed / proven". Counted when the judging actually happened: an invitation plus proof you reviewed others’ work.
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.
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 | counted | 44 of 236 (19%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Membership | not counted | 15 of 126 (12%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Published material about you | counted | 90 of 242 (37%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | not 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) |
| 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 the field of endeavor. Evidence of a high-profile career was offset by gaps in evidence, particularly regarding recent activity and commercial success in the US, and the focus of US media coverage on her personal life rather than her professional 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 February 26, 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: 8, counted: 3 (Awards, Published material about you, Exhibitions); not counted: Membership, Judging, Leading role, High remuneration, 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: