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 dismissedEngineering20223 criteria counted

Engineering

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 Engineering (Engineering), 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: Judging, Leading role, High remuneration; not counted: Published material about you, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 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

Awardsnot claimed
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about younot counted
Judgingcounted
Original contributionnot counted
Scholarly authorshipnot counted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolecounted
High remunerationcounted
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.

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

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks USCIS Fact Sheet - STEM Petition Trends: EB-2 NIW and O-1A (FY 2018-2023) BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026

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).

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks EB-2 NIW exhibit letter requesting publication Exhibit 12.1: Elsevier Book Series Page - Authorship Evidence (NIW)

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
Published material about you	not counted	22 of 48 (46%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judging	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	counted	24 of 45 (53%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remuneration	counted	9 of 23 (39%)	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 demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, despite meeting three initial evidentiary criteria. The evidence presented lacked the breadth and corroboration needed to establish recognition beyond his employer.

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 13, 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: 6, counted: 3 (Judging, Leading role, High remuneration); not counted: Published material about you, Original contribution, 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.

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

RFE: Published material about you RFE: Original contribution RFE: Scholarly authorship

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 Engineering 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.