Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
case remandedOther20235 criteria counted

Law (Public Prosecutor, Institutional Policy, Technology Innovation)

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 Law (Public Prosecutor, Institutional Policy, Technology Innovation) (Other), 2023. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 5 were counted: Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role.

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, 5 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

The Other field in the database: 219 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 3 sustained, 40 remanded, 176 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Published material about youcounted43 of 126 (34%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judgingcounted74 of 95 (78%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contributioncounted17 of 117 (15%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorshipcounted75 of 94 (80%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading rolecounted50 of 117 (43%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

How to read this case

The formal gate was passed: no claimed criterion is marked "not counted", and the case reached the final-merits totality assessment. That is exactly where it was lost: at this stage the officer looks not at the number of criteria but at whether the evidence as a whole shows sustained national or international acclaim. Across the appeals base, 45% of cases are lost at final merits.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The Director's final merits analysis was incomplete, failing to consider all submitted evidence (awards, published materials, and contributions to the field) and provide a sufficient explanation for the denial, hindering meaningful appellate review. The decision did not adequately assess sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate the petitioner was among the top in their 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 December 14, 2023 (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: 5 (Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role).
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?
Yes, but on the final-merits totality assessment the petitioner fell short - the criteria were only the entry gate.

Related

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

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.