How did this appeal end?

The appeal was sustained - the denial was overturned in the petitioner's favor. A rare outcome: about 3% of our base.

Did the case reach the final-merits stage?

Yes, and on the totality assessment the petitioner met the extraordinary-ability standard.

appeal sustainedScience20215 criteria counted

Ocean Science/Marine Geology

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 Ocean Science/Marine Geology (Science), 2021. The appeal was appeal sustained, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner met the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 5 were counted: Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the appeal was sustained - a rare outcome in the appeals base. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 5 were counted. The petitioner also passed the final-merits totality assessment - both the criteria and the overall extraordinary-ability standard.

EB-1A criteria in this case

Awardsnot claimed
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about youcounted
Judgingcounted
Original contributioncounted
Scholarly authorshipcounted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolecounted
High remunerationnot claimed
Commercial successnot claimed
Comparable evidencenot claimed

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	counted	35 of 89 (39%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judging	counted	105 of 117 (90%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contribution	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.

How to read this case

No claimed criterion here is marked "not counted", and the petitioner passed the final-merits totality assessment - one of the rare winning outcomes in the base (AAO appeals are sustained in roughly 3% of cases). Study which criteria were counted and compare them with your own evidence set.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The initial denial was based on a finding that the beneficiary did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The AAO found the petitioner met the burden of proof and demonstrated 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 March 1, 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: 5 (Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role).
How did this appeal end?: The appeal was sustained - the denial was overturned in the petitioner's favor. A rare outcome: about 3% of our base.
Did the case reach the final-merits stage?: Yes, and on the totality assessment the petitioner met the extraordinary-ability standard.

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.