Physics
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 Physics (Science), 2024. 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: Original contribution, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Judging.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 3 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 claimed
- Judgingnot counted
- Original contributioncounted
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- 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.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judging | not 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) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Science appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, nor did he demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. His judging experience (peer review) and publications, while notable, were not sufficiently distinguished to meet the high standard required for this classification.
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 June 4, 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: 3, counted: 2 (Original contribution, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Judging.
- 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: