Healthcare Strategy and Effectiveness / Management Analysis
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 Healthcare Strategy and Effectiveness / Management Analysis (Business), 2020. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Judging, High remuneration; not counted: Original contribution, Leading role.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 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 claimed
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot counted
- 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.
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.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judging | counted | 44 of 64 (69%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 6 of 66 (9%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Leading role | not counted | 57 of 91 (63%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| High remuneration | counted | 19 of 65 (29%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Business appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for an EB-1 visa, specifically failing to establish 'original contributions of major significance' and a 'leading or critical role' within distinguished organizations. The evidence presented was largely limited to the beneficiary's impact within specific projects and employers, lacking the broad industry-wide influence required.
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 April 23, 2020 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 4, counted: 2 (Judging, High remuneration); not counted: Original contribution, Leading role.
- 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: