Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedOther20240 criteria counted

Not specified, but encompasses sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics

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 Not specified, but encompasses sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics (Other), 2024. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Original contribution.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 1 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 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 claimed
  • Judgingnot claimed
  • Original contributionnot counted
  • Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
  • 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.

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.

The Other field in the database: 219 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 3 sustained, 40 remanded, 176 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Original contributionnot counted17 of 117 (15%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

Failure to demonstrate intent to continue work in the area of expertise in the United States, which was a waived issue on appeal. The AAO declined to reach arguments regarding original contributions and final merits determination due to this dispositive issue.

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 November 14, 2024 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
Criteria claimed: 1, counted: 0; not counted: Original contribution.
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.