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.

All EB-1A appeals

case remandedEngineering20233 criteria counted

Engineering (mechanical, aeronautical, and aerospace)

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 (mechanical, aeronautical, and aerospace) (Engineering), 2023. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 3 were counted: Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Membership, Original contribution, Exhibitions, High remuneration.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 7 EB-1A criteria claimed, 3 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.

EB-1A criteria in this case

Awardsnot claimed
Membershipnot counted
Published material about youcounted
Judgingcounted
Original contributionnot counted
Scholarly authorshipcounted
Exhibitionsnot counted
Leading rolenot claimed
High remunerationnot counted
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.

Membership

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026 Approved EB-1 evidence set for real estate development

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

Exhibitions

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 226 cases and counted in 149 (66%). Counts showing work at artistic exhibitions, with venue, dates and proof of participation.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide International Portrait Contest Winners 2024: Exhibitions Recommendation Letter Template for an Artist - O-1 / EB-1A (Arts)

High remuneration

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 346 cases and counted in 94 (27%). Counted when pay is compared to the professional and regional average, with a cited source.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide EB-2 NIW RFE Exhibit Index Example Including High-Salary Evidence Checklist - O-1 / EB-1A / EB-2 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
Membership	not counted	5 of 34 (15%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Published material about you	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	counted	52 of 65 (80%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Exhibitions	not counted	0 of 5 (0%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
High remuneration	not 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 Director did not sufficiently analyze the evidence regarding lesser national/international awards and leading/critical role in a distinguished organization. The petition was remanded for further analysis of these criteria.

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 3, 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: 7, counted: 3 (Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Membership, Original contribution, Exhibitions, High remuneration.
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.

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

RFE: Membership RFE: Original contribution RFE: Exhibitions RFE: High remuneration

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.