Marketing
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 (Marketing), 2024. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 1 were counted: Leading role; not counted: Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship.
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, 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 counted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot counted
- 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.
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.
Judging
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 659 cases and counted in 491 (75%). Typical AAO objection: "Judging not actually performed / proven". Counted when the judging actually happened: an invitation plus proof you reviewed others’ work.
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.
Scholarly authorship
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 473 cases and counted in 360 (76%). Typical AAO objection: "Published material not ABOUT the person". Counts scholarly articles in field-specific journals, backed by significance (citations).
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) |
| Judging | not counted | 14 of 22 (64%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 4 of 23 (17%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | not counted | 5 of 12 (42%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | 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 Director's decisions (initial denial and denial of motion to reopen/reconsider) lacked detailed analysis of the evidence and failed to adequately explain the reasons for unfavorable conclusions, including the finding of willful misrepresentation. The petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to rebut the misrepresentation finding.
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 October 30, 2024 (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: 1 (Leading role); not counted: Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship.
- 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: