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 dismissedBeauty20201 criteria counted

Image Consulting/Beauty Pageant Coaching

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 Image Consulting/Beauty Pageant Coaching (Beauty), 2020. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 1 were counted: Judging; not counted: Published material about you, Exhibitions, Leading role, High remuneration.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 1 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
Judgingcounted
Original contributionnot claimed
Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
Exhibitionsnot counted
Leading rolenot counted
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.

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

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)

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

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 Beauty field in the database: 19 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 4 remanded, 14 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	2 of 14 (14%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judging	counted	7 of 13 (54%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Exhibitions	not counted	6 of 9 (67%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	not counted	0 of 8 (0%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remuneration	not counted	2 of 8 (25%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and did not meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the submitted evidence regarding published material, artistic exhibitions, leading/critical role, and high salary were found insufficient.

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 July 29, 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: 5, counted: 1 (Judging); not counted: Published material about you, Exhibitions, Leading role, High remuneration.
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: Exhibitions RFE: Leading role 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 Beauty 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.