Marketing and Communications
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 and Communications (Marketing), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 1 were counted: High remuneration; not counted: Published material about you.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 2 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
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationcounted
- 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.
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) |
| High remuneration | 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 Petitioner failed to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the denial. The Petitioner made broad, general claims without providing specific evidence or explanation to overcome the Director's grounds for denial, and failed to submit a promised brief with additional evidence.
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 September 2, 2021 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 2, counted: 1 (High remuneration); not counted: Published material about you.
- 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?
- 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: