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.

All EB-1A appeals

case remandedScience20212 criteria counted

Medical Research

AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa

Updated: September 10, 2026Author: Alina Kanametova

This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Medical Research (Science), 2021. 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: Scholarly authorship, Leading role; not counted: Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution.

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, 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 younot counted
Judgingnot counted
Original contributionnot counted
Scholarly authorshipcounted
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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks PR-CY traffic snapshot for news site, Nov 2023 O-1 exhibit sample for a media article

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Exhibit 14: Peer Review of Conference Papers (NIW) EB-2 NIW article review confirmation letter

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks USCIS Fact Sheet - STEM Petition Trends: EB-2 NIW and O-1A (FY 2018-2023) BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026

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:

Criterion	In this case	Counted in the field	How objections were answered
Published material about you	not counted	35 of 89 (39%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judging	not counted	105 of 117 (90%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contribution	not counted	33 of 123 (27%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	counted	121 of 127 (95%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	counted	19 of 54 (35%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The Director's decision lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence submitted, particularly regarding judging and original contributions, and did not adequately address the comparable evidence request. The decision also omitted a determination regarding the scholarly articles criterion despite acknowledging it in the RFE.

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 May 13, 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: 5, counted: 2 (Scholarly authorship, Leading role); not counted: Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution.
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:

RFE: Published material about you RFE: Judging RFE: Original contribution

Terms in this case:RFE (request for evidence)final merits AAO (appeals office)

All EB-1A appeals O-1 / EB-1A criteria Analyze my case Which visa fits

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

Talent visa for Science What is the US talent visa

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.