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.

appeal dismissedEngineering20221 criteria counted

Printing Engineering

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 Printing Engineering (Engineering), 2022. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 1 were counted: Published material about you; not counted: Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, High remuneration.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 1 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 youcounted
Judgingnot counted
Original contributionnot counted
Scholarly authorshipnot counted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolenot claimed
High remunerationnot counted
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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Exhibit 14: Peer Review of Conference Papers (NIW) EB-2 NIW article review confirmation letter

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks USCIS Fact Sheet - STEM Petition Trends: EB-2 NIW and O-1A (FY 2018-2023) BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026

Scholarly authorship

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 473 cases and counted in 360 (76%). Typical AAO objection: "Published material not ABOUT the person". Counts scholarly articles in field-specific journals, backed by significance (citations).

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks EB-2 NIW exhibit letter requesting publication Exhibit 12.1: Elsevier Book Series Page - Authorship Evidence (NIW)

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide EB-2 NIW RFE Exhibit Index Example Including High-Salary Evidence Checklist - O-1 / EB-1A / EB-2 NIW

The Engineering field in the database: 94 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 19 remanded, 74 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	22 of 48 (46%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judging	not counted	51 of 65 (78%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contribution	not counted	18 of 67 (27%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	not counted	52 of 65 (80%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
High remuneration	not counted	9 of 23 (39%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The finding of willful misrepresentation was withdrawn due to insufficient justification.

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 30, 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: 5, counted: 1 (Published material about you); not counted: Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, High remuneration.
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:

RFE: Judging RFE: Original contribution RFE: Scholarly authorship RFE: High remuneration

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 Engineering 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.