Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedBusiness20213 criteria counted

Media/Business

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 Media/Business (Business), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 3 were counted: Judging, Leading role, High remuneration; not counted: Published material about you.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 3 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

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 Business field in the database: 143 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 4 sustained, 33 remanded, 106 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 younot counted35 of 85 (41%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judgingcounted44 of 64 (69%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Leading rolecounted57 of 91 (63%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remunerationcounted19 of 65 (29%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field, despite meeting the facial requirements of three regulatory criteria. Evidence of a leading role in a reputable company and high salary were insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.

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 February 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: 4, counted: 3 (Judging, Leading role, 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?
Yes, but on the final-merits totality assessment the petitioner fell short - the criteria were only the entry gate.

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.