Business
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 Business (Business), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 4 were counted: Published material about you, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, High remuneration.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 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 claimed
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolecounted
- High remunerationcounted
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published material about you | counted | 35 of 85 (41%) | 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) |
| High remuneration | counted | 19 of 65 (29%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Business appeals.
How to read this case
The formal gate was passed: no claimed criterion is marked "not counted", and the case reached the final-merits totality assessment. That is exactly where it was lost: at this stage the officer looks not at the number of criteria but at whether the evidence as a whole shows sustained national or international acclaim. Across the appeals base, 45% of cases are lost at final merits.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor. The motion to reopen was dismissed due to a failure to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel prejudiced the case, and the motion to reconsider failed to establish an incorrect application of law or policy.
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 29, 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: 4 (Published material about you, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, 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.