Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedBusiness20202 criteria counted

Business (e-commerce, gourmet food delivery)

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 (e-commerce, gourmet food delivery) (Business), 2020. 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: Awards, Membership, Original contribution.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 5 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

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.

Awards

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.

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.

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.

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:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Awardsnot counted3 of 67 (4%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Membershipnot counted6 of 53 (11%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Published material about youcounted35 of 85 (41%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contributionnot counted6 of 66 (9%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Leading rolecounted57 of 91 (63%)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 establish that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically regarding lesser nationally/internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, and original contributions of major significance. While published material and leading roles were established, the other criteria were not met.

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 February 13, 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: 5, counted: 2 (Published material about you, Leading role); not counted: Awards, Membership, Original contribution.
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:

Related

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

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.