Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
case remandedMarketing20232 criteria counted

Marketing/Advertising (specifically as a marketing executive and CEO of an advertising agency)

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 Marketing/Advertising (specifically as a marketing executive and CEO of an advertising agency) (Marketing), 2023. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Judging, Leading role; not counted: Membership.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 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 counted
  • Published material about younot claimed
  • Judgingcounted
  • Original contributionnot claimed
  • 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.

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.

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:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Membershipnot counted1 of 19 (5%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Judgingcounted14 of 22 (64%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Leading rolecounted15 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 Director did not adequately analyze the evidence presented regarding several criteria, including awards, published material, judging of others' work, and leading/critical roles. The Director also misinterpreted the Beneficiary's field of endeavor. The decision lacked sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review.

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 January 10, 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: 3, counted: 2 (Judging, Leading role); not counted: Membership.
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

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.