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

Criteria claimed: 4, counted: 0; not counted: Awards, Membership, Judging, 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.

All EB-1A appeals

appeal dismissedScience20210 criteria counted

Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing (specifically SAP Planning Specialist)

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 Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing (specifically SAP Planning Specialist) (Science), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Awards, Membership, Judging, High remuneration.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 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 counted
Published material about younot claimed
Judgingnot counted
Original contributionnot claimed
Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolenot claimed
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.

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026 EB-1A green card requirements checklist - extraordinary ability, intent to work, future benefit

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026 Approved EB-1 evidence set for real estate development

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Exhibit 14: Peer Review of Conference Papers (NIW) EB-2 NIW article review confirmation letter

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide EB-2 NIW RFE Exhibit Index Example Including High-Salary Evidence Checklist - O-1 / EB-1A / EB-2 NIW

The Science field in the database: 155 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 7 sustained, 30 remanded, 118 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	4 of 54 (7%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Membership	not counted	5 of 45 (11%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Judging	not counted	105 of 117 (90%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remuneration	not counted	9 of 32 (28%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically relating to awards, memberships, judging, and high salary. The petition did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, nor that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the very top of their field.

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: 4, counted: 0; not counted: Awards, Membership, Judging, 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:

RFE: Awards RFE: Membership RFE: Judging RFE: High remuneration

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 Science 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.