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

Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 0; not counted: Scholarly authorship, Leading role, High remuneration.

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 remandedBusiness20200 criteria counted

Business (Construction CMS 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 (Construction CMS Consultant) (Business), 2020. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Scholarly authorship, Leading role, High remuneration.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.

EB-1A criteria in this case

Awardsnot claimed
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about younot claimed
Judgingnot claimed
Original contributionnot claimed
Scholarly authorshipnot counted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
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.

Scholarly authorship

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 473 cases and counted in 360 (76%). Typical AAO objection: "Published material not ABOUT the person". Counts scholarly articles in field-specific journals, backed by significance (citations).

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks EB-2 NIW exhibit letter requesting publication Exhibit 12.1: Elsevier Book Series Page - Authorship Evidence (NIW)

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

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 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
Scholarly authorship	not counted	34 of 55 (62%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	not counted	57 of 91 (63%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remuneration	not counted	19 of 65 (29%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The Director failed to adequately analyze the evidence submitted, imposed novel evidentiary requirements, and did not fully explain the reasons for denying the petition. The AAO remanded the case for a new decision consistent with the analysis provided.

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 January 23, 2020 (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: 0; not counted: Scholarly authorship, Leading role, High remuneration.
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: Scholarly authorship RFE: Leading role 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 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.