Business (Engineering Innovations and Business Development of Industrial and Defense Equipment)
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 (Engineering Innovations and Business Development of Industrial and Defense Equipment) (Engineering), 2020. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 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 counted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot counted
- Judgingnot counted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot counted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot counted
- High remunerationnot claimed
- 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.
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.
Published material about you
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 793 cases and counted in 286 (36%). Typical AAO objections: "Outlet not shown to be major media"; "Published material not ABOUT the person". Counts coverage specifically ABOUT YOU in independent major or trade outlets, with publication details.
Judging
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 659 cases and counted in 491 (75%). Typical AAO objection: "Judging not actually performed / proven". Counted when the judging actually happened: an invitation plus proof you reviewed others’ work.
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.
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).
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.
The Engineering field in the database: 94 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 19 remanded, 74 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | not counted | 5 of 40 (13%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Published material about you | not counted | 22 of 48 (46%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | not counted | 51 of 65 (78%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 18 of 67 (27%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | not counted | 52 of 65 (80%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | not counted | 24 of 45 (53%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Engineering appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements by not demonstrating receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the submitted evidence was found insufficient to establish eligibility under criteria related to lesser awards, published material, judging the work of others, original contributions, leading/critical roles, and authorship of scholarly articles.
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 August 25, 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: 6, counted: 0; not counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role.
- 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
- Engineer/Vehicle Designappeal dismissed, 2021
- Audio Engineeringcase remanded, 2021
- Civil Engineeringappeal dismissed, 2024
- Engineeringappeal dismissed, 2022
- Thermal power generation systems / Engineeringcase remanded, 2020
- Engineering (Drilling Engineering, Oil and Gas Exploration/Production)appeal dismissed, 2024
- artificial intelligence technologyappeal sustained, 2020