Music
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 Music (Arts), 2020. 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: Exhibitions, Leading role; not counted: Published material about you, Commercial success.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 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
- Awardsnot claimed
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot counted
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionscounted
- Leading rolecounted
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot counted
- 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.
Commercial success
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 81 cases and counted in 9 (11%). Counts commercial success in the performing arts with numbers: box office, sales, charts.
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:
| Criterion | In this case | Counted in the field | How objections were answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published material about you | not counted | 90 of 242 (37%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Exhibitions | counted | 130 of 160 (81%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | counted | 45 of 161 (28%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Commercial success | not counted | 6 of 53 (11%) | - |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Arts appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to meet at least three evidentiary criteria (specifically published material in major media and commercial success) required to establish extraordinary ability. Issues with translation accuracy also impacted the assessment of published material.
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 April 23, 2020 (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: 2 (Exhibitions, Leading role); not counted: Published material about you, Commercial success.
- 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: