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), 2023. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Published material about you, Leading role; not counted: Original contribution, High remuneration.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 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 youcounted
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolecounted
- 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.
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.
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.
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) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 6 of 66 (9%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Leading role | 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 petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary requirements, specifically regarding original contributions and high salary, despite submitting evidence of published material and a leading role. The inconsistencies in reported income and lack of demonstrated impact on the field as a whole led to the dismissal.
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 December 8, 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: 4, counted: 2 (Published material about you, Leading role); not counted: Original contribution, 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?
- 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: