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.

appeal dismissedIT20214 criteria counted

Electrical and Computer Engineering / Telecommunications

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 Electrical and Computer Engineering / Telecommunications (IT), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 4 were counted: Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, High remuneration; not counted: Published material about you, Commercial success.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 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

Awardsnot claimed
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about younot counted
Judgingnot claimed
Original contributioncounted
Scholarly authorshipcounted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolecounted
High remunerationcounted
Commercial successnot counted
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.

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks PR-CY traffic snapshot for news site, Nov 2023 O-1 exhibit sample for a media article

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 IT field in the database: 69 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 11 remanded, 57 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
Published material about you	not counted	17 of 45 (38%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contribution	counted	11 of 55 (20%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	counted	43 of 55 (78%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	counted	22 of 41 (54%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remuneration	counted	18 of 36 (50%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Commercial success	not counted	1 of 3 (33%)	-

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petition was denied because the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that the beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top of the field, despite meeting the initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence regarding patents and commercialization insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

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 June 30, 2021 (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: 4 (Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, High remuneration); not counted: Published material about you, Commercial success.
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.

The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:

RFE: Published material about you

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 IT 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.