Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedScience20212 criteria counted

mathematics

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 mathematics (Science), 2021. 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: Published material about you, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Judging.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. 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 claimed
  • Published material about youcounted
  • Judgingnot counted
  • Original contributionnot claimed
  • Scholarly authorshipcounted
  • Exhibitionsnot claimed
  • Leading rolenot claimed
  • 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.

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.

The Science field in the database: 155 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 7 sustained, 30 remanded, 118 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 youcounted35 of 89 (39%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judgingnot counted105 of 117 (90%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorshipcounted121 of 127 (95%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements by satisfying at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award. Specifically, the petitioner failed to demonstrate judging of the work of others, despite claiming to do so.

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 29, 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: 3, counted: 2 (Published material about you, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Judging.
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:

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.