Polygraph Examination/Research/Instruction
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 Polygraph Examination/Research/Instruction (Science), 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: Judging, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Awards, Membership, Published material about you, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration, Comparable evidence.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 9 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot counted
- Membershipnot counted
- Published material about younot counted
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot counted
- High remunerationnot counted
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot counted
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.
Awards
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.
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.
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.
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.
Leading role
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 624 cases and counted in 256 (41%). Counted when the organization is known and the role is leading or key, per the org chart and letters.
High remuneration
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 346 cases and counted in 94 (27%). Counted when pay is compared to the professional and regional average, with a cited source.
Comparable evidence
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 64 cases and counted in 1 (2%).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | not counted | 4 of 54 (7%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Membership | not counted | 5 of 45 (11%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Published material about you | not counted | 35 of 89 (39%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | counted | 105 of 117 (90%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 33 of 123 (27%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 121 of 127 (95%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | not counted | 19 of 54 (35%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| High remuneration | not counted | 9 of 32 (28%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Comparable evidence | not counted | 0 of 7 (0%) | - |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Science appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for the EB-1A classification. Specifically, the evidence was insufficient to establish nationally or internationally recognized prizes, membership in qualifying associations, published material about the alien, original contributions of major significance, a leading role in a distinguished organization, or a high salary relative to others in the field.
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 January 28, 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: 9, counted: 2 (Judging, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Awards, Membership, Published material about you, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration, Comparable evidence.
- 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?
- No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:
Related
Similar appeals
- Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) regulatory affairsappeal dismissed, 2020
- Radiation Biology, Neuroscience, Gulf War Illnessappeal dismissed, 2020
- Sciences (Periodontics)appeal dismissed, 2024
- Environmental Chemistryappeal dismissed, 2021
- Research Chemistryappeal dismissed, 2020
- Pharmaceutical/Oncologyappeal dismissed, 2020
- Actingappeal dismissed, 2022