Civil Engineering
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 Civil Engineering (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, 1 were counted: Scholarly authorship; not counted: Awards, Original contribution, Leading role.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 1 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 claimed
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- 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.
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.
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) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 18 of 67 (27%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | 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 at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1 visa, specifically regarding nationally/internationally recognized prizes, original contributions, and a leading/critical role in distinguished organizations. The translations of foreign documents initially had issues with proper certification, though this was later addressed. The petitioner did meet the scholarly articles criterion.
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 April 27, 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: 4, counted: 1 (Scholarly authorship); not counted: Awards, Original contribution, 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: