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

Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 3 (Judging, Scholarly authorship, Leading role).

How did this appeal end?

The appeal was sustained - the denial was overturned in the petitioner's favor. A rare outcome: about 3% of our base.

Did the case reach the final-merits stage?

Yes, and on the totality assessment the petitioner met the extraordinary-ability standard.

All EB-1A appeals

appeal sustainedBusiness20233 criteria counted

Business (Big Data Center Consultant)

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 Business (Big Data Center Consultant) (Business), 2023. The appeal was appeal sustained, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner met the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 3 were counted: Judging, Scholarly authorship, Leading role.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the appeal was sustained - a rare outcome in the appeals base. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 3 were counted. The petitioner also passed the final-merits totality assessment - both the criteria and the overall extraordinary-ability standard.

EB-1A criteria in this case

Awardsnot claimed
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about younot claimed
Judgingcounted
Original contributionnot claimed
Scholarly authorshipcounted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolecounted
High remunerationnot claimed
Commercial successnot claimed
Comparable evidencenot claimed

The Business field in the database: 143 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 4 sustained, 33 remanded, 106 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
Judging	counted	44 of 64 (69%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	counted	34 of 55 (62%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	counted	57 of 91 (63%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

How to read this case

No claimed criterion here is marked "not counted", and the petitioner passed the final-merits totality assessment - one of the rare winning outcomes in the base (AAO appeals are sustained in roughly 3% of cases). Study which criteria were counted and compare them with your own evidence set.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the top of their field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary requirements. The AAO reversed this, finding the petitioner *did* demonstrate sustained acclaim and being at the top of their field based on evidence of leadership in setting national technological standards and expertise in financial industry data centers.

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 November 30, 2023 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?: Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 3 (Judging, Scholarly authorship, Leading role).
How did this appeal end?: The appeal was sustained - the denial was overturned in the petitioner's favor. A rare outcome: about 3% of our base.
Did the case reach the final-merits stage?: Yes, and on the totality assessment the petitioner met the extraordinary-ability standard.

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 Business 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.