Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
case remandedScience20234 criteria counted

Economics and Political Science

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 Economics and Political Science (Science), 2023. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 4 were counted: Awards, Published material about you, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Commercial success.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 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.

Commercial success

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 81 cases and counted in 9 (11%). Counts commercial success in the performing arts with numbers: box office, sales, charts.

Criterion guide EB-2 NIW Exhibit: FDA X-ray Radiation Update

The Science field in the database: 155 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 7 sustained, 30 remanded, 118 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Awardscounted4 of 54 (7%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Published material about youcounted35 of 89 (39%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contributioncounted33 of 123 (27%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorshipcounted121 of 127 (95%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Commercial successnot counted1 of 2 (50%)-

Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Science appeals.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting the evidentiary requirements through a one-time achievement or at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO found the petitioner met at least three criteria and remanded the case for a final merits review.

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 May 4, 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: 5, counted: 4 (Awards, Published material about you, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Commercial success.
How did this appeal end?
The case was remanded: the AAO withdrew the decision and sent it back to the officer - not a final approval, but not a final denial either.
Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.
Terms in this case:RFE (request for evidence)final meritsAAO (appeals office)

Related

All EB-1A appealsO-1 / EB-1A criteriaAnalyze my caseWhich visa fits

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

Talent visa for ScienceWhat 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.