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.

All EB-1A appeals

case remandedOther20223 criteria counted

Broadcast News Analysis

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 Broadcast News Analysis (Other), 2022. 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: Membership, Original contribution, Leading role.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 6 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 counted
Published material about youcounted
Judgingnot claimed
Original contributionnot counted
Scholarly authorshipcounted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolenot counted
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.

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

Original contribution

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 642 cases and counted in 105 (16%). Typical AAO objection: "Original contribution: impact not shown". Counted when the contribution’s impact is shown: adoption, citation, use by others.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks USCIS Fact Sheet - STEM Petition Trends: EB-2 NIW and O-1A (FY 2018-2023) BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks USCIS Policy Memo PM-602-0005.1 - Evidence Evaluation Methodology for I-140 Petitions (Auto-Translated) Approved EB-1 evidence set for real estate development

The Other field in the database: 219 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 3 sustained, 40 remanded, 176 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	14 of 103 (14%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Membership	not counted	7 of 92 (8%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Published material about you	counted	43 of 126 (34%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contribution	not counted	17 of 117 (15%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	counted	75 of 94 (80%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	not counted	50 of 117 (43%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The Director's final merits analysis was insufficient, failing to consider the totality of the evidence submitted, including expert opinion letters, professional memberships, and contributions as a news anchor/journalist. The decision lacked a detailed explanation of why the petitioner had not demonstrated 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 September 16, 2022 (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: 3 (Awards, Published material about you, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Membership, Original contribution, Leading role.
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:

RFE: Membership RFE: Original contribution RFE: Leading role

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

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.