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?

No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.

appeal dismissedArts20230 criteria counted

Fashion Design

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 Fashion Design (Arts), 2023. 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: Published material about you, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, Commercial success, Comparable evidence.

What this case shows

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

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

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

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

Comparable evidence

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

The Arts field in the database: 343 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 12 sustained, 52 remanded, 279 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	90 of 242 (37%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	not counted	17 of 41 (41%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	not counted	45 of 161 (28%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Commercial success	not counted	6 of 53 (11%)	-
Comparable evidence	not counted	0 of 17 (0%)	-

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirements by demonstrating either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the AAO found the evidence insufficient for scholarly articles, leading/critical role, and commercial success (even with 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 March 29, 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: 5, counted: 0; not counted: Published material about you, Scholarly authorship, Leading role, Commercial success, 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?: 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: Published material about you 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 Arts 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.