Oil and Gas Industry (Business)
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 Oil and Gas Industry (Business) (Business), 2022. The appeal was appeal sustained, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner met the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 5 were counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Leading role; not counted: Membership.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the appeal was sustained - a rare outcome in the appeals base. Of the 6 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
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot counted
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributioncounted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- 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.
Membership
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.
The Business field in the database: 143 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 4 sustained, 33 remanded, 106 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | counted | 3 of 67 (4%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Membership | not counted | 6 of 53 (11%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Published material about you | counted | 35 of 85 (41%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | counted | 44 of 64 (69%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | counted | 6 of 66 (9%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Leading role | counted | 57 of 91 (63%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Business appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The initial denial was based on the conclusion that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and was not in the small percentage at the very top of the field. The AAO found the Director's final merits determination did not consider the record in its entirety and overlooked persuasive elements, ultimately determining the petitioner had established eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
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 September 16, 2022 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 6, counted: 5 (Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Leading role); not counted: Membership.
- 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.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond: