Entertainment (Producer)
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 Entertainment (Producer) (Other), 2024. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 5 were counted: Awards, Published material about you, Original contribution, Exhibitions, Leading role; not counted: Membership.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 5 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot counted
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributioncounted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionscounted
- Leading rolecounted
- High remunerationnot claimed
- 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.
The Other field in the database: 219 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 3 sustained, 40 remanded, 176 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 | 14 of 103 (14%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Membership | not counted | 7 of 92 (8%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Published material about you | counted | 43 of 126 (34%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | counted | 17 of 117 (15%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Exhibitions | counted | 9 of 22 (41%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | counted | 50 of 117 (43%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Other appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The initial denial concluded the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the director incorrectly evaluated evidence and remanded the case for a new decision, specifically regarding awards, original contributions, and leading/critical roles.
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 August 14, 2024 (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: 5 (Awards, Published material about you, Original contribution, Exhibitions, Leading role); not counted: Membership.
- 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: