Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedArts20212 criteria counted

Multimedia Artist

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 Multimedia Artist (Arts), 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: Awards, Published material about you; not counted: Judging, Original contribution, Exhibitions.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 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.

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.

Exhibitions

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 226 cases and counted in 149 (66%). Counts showing work at artistic exhibitions, with venue, dates and proof of participation.

The Arts field in the database: 343 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 12 sustained, 52 remanded, 279 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Awardscounted44 of 236 (19%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Published material about youcounted90 of 242 (37%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judgingnot counted117 of 162 (72%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contributionnot counted14 of 119 (12%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Exhibitionsnot counted130 of 160 (81%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the EB-1 classification and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, and is not among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.

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 March 26, 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 (Awards, Published material about you); not counted: Judging, Original contribution, Exhibitions.
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.