Interior Design
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 Interior Design (Arts), 2020. The appeal was appeal sustained, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner met the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 3 were counted: Awards, Published material about you, Leading role; not counted: Original contribution.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the appeal was sustained - a rare outcome in the appeals base. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 3 were counted. The petitioner also passed the final-merits totality assessment - both the criteria and the overall extraordinary-ability standard.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolecounted
- High remunerationnot claimed
- 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | counted | 44 of 236 (19%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Published material about you | counted | 90 of 242 (37%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 14 of 119 (12%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Leading role | counted | 45 of 161 (28%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Arts appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria and not establishing intent to continue working in the field. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (prizes, published material, and leading/critical role) and that the petitioner's plan to open a design studio demonstrated intent to continue working in the field.
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 November 25, 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: 3 (Awards, Published material about you, Leading role); not counted: Original contribution.
- How did this appeal end?
- The appeal was sustained - the denial was overturned in the petitioner's favor. A rare outcome: about 3% of our base.
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- Yes, and on the totality assessment the petitioner met the extraordinary-ability standard.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond: