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.

appeal dismissedMarketing20222 criteria counted

Journalism/Producer

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 Journalism/Producer (Marketing), 2022. 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, Exhibitions; not counted: Awards, Membership, Published material about you, Leading role.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 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 counted
Membershipnot counted
Published material about younot counted
Judgingcounted
Original contributionnot claimed
Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
Exhibitionscounted
Leading rolenot counted
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.

Awards

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026 EB-1A green card requirements checklist - extraordinary ability, intent to work, future benefit

Membership

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026 Approved EB-1 evidence set for real estate development

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

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

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
Awards	not counted	3 of 28 (11%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Membership	not counted	1 of 19 (5%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
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)
Exhibitions	counted	2 of 10 (20%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	not counted	15 of 30 (50%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for either a major international award or at least three of the ten lesser criteria demonstrating extraordinary ability. Specifically, the awards were not nationally/internationally recognized, memberships did not require outstanding achievement, published material was not in major media, and the leading/critical role was not adequately demonstrated.

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 February 18, 2022 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?: Criteria claimed: 6, counted: 2 (Judging, Exhibitions); not counted: Awards, Membership, Published material about you, 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:

RFE: Awards RFE: Membership RFE: Published material about you 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 Marketing 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.