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 dismissedBusiness20240 criteria counted

Entrepreneurship, City Counseling, Philanthropy

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 Entrepreneurship, City Counseling, Philanthropy (Business), 2024. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Awards, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, Comparable evidence.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 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 counted
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about younot claimed
Judgingnot claimed
Original contributionnot counted
Scholarly authorshipnot counted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolenot counted
High remunerationnot claimed
Commercial successnot claimed
Comparable evidencenot counted

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.

Awards

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026 EB-1A green card requirements checklist - extraordinary ability, intent to work, future benefit

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)

Leading role

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 624 cases and counted in 256 (41%). Counted when the organization is known and the role is leading or key, per the org chart and letters.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks USCIS Policy Memo PM-602-0005.1 - Evidence Evaluation Methodology for I-140 Petitions (Auto-Translated) Approved EB-1 evidence set for real estate development

Comparable evidence

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 64 cases and counted in 1 (2%).

The Business field in the database: 143 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 4 sustained, 33 remanded, 106 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	not counted	3 of 67 (4%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contribution	not counted	6 of 66 (9%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	not counted	34 of 55 (62%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	not counted	57 of 91 (63%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Comparable evidence	not counted	1 of 5 (20%)	-

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the standard criteria were not applicable to his field to allow for comparable evidence.

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 15, 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: 5, counted: 0; not counted: Awards, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, Comparable evidence.
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: Awards RFE: Original contribution RFE: Scholarly authorship RFE: Leading role

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 Business 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.