Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?

Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 3 (Awards, Judging, Scholarly authorship).

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.

All EB-1A appeals

appeal dismissedBusiness20223 criteria counted

Economic History

AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa

Updated: September 10, 2026Author: Alina Kanametova

This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Economic History (Business), 2022. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 3 were counted: Awards, Judging, Scholarly authorship.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 3 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

Awardscounted
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about younot claimed
Judgingcounted
Original contributionnot claimed
Scholarly authorshipcounted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolenot claimed
High remunerationnot claimed
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
Awards	counted	3 of 67 (4%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judging	counted	44 of 64 (69%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	counted	34 of 55 (62%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)

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 has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The response to his one book, published several years prior to the petition, and limited citations of his work do not demonstrate the required level of acclaim.

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 25, 2022 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?: Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 3 (Awards, Judging, Scholarly authorship).
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.

Terms in this case:RFE (request for evidence)final merits AAO (appeals office)

All EB-1A appeals O-1 / EB-1A criteria Analyze my case Which visa fits

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

Talent visa for Business What is the US talent visa

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.