Information and Communication Technology
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 Information and Communication Technology (Marketing), 2024. The appeal was case remanded, 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, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. 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 counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- 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.
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.
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.
The Marketing field in the database: 47 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 12 remanded, 34 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 | 10 of 32 (31%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | counted | 14 of 22 (64%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 4 of 23 (17%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Leading role | not counted | 15 of 30 (50%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| High remuneration | not counted | 4 of 21 (19%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Marketing appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Director's decision lacked sufficient analysis and explanation regarding the petitioner's evidence for meeting the criteria for extraordinary ability, specifically failing to adequately address the evidence submitted in response to the Request for Evidence (RFE). The decision was largely copied from the RFE itself, preventing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to contest the denial.
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 December 26, 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: 1 (Judging); not counted: Published material about you, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration.
- 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:
Related
Similar appeals
- Marketing and Communicationsappeal dismissed, 2021
- Network Communications/Internet of Thingsappeal dismissed, 2023
- Journalism/Literature/Poetryappeal dismissed, 2020
- City Brandingappeal dismissed, 2023
- Marketingappeal dismissed, 2020
- Design and Marketing (Aircraft Livery)appeal dismissed, 2024
- Ceramics Artappeal dismissed, 2024