Real Estate
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 Real Estate (Business), 2024. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: High remuneration, Comparable evidence.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 2 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 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 claimed
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- 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.
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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| High remuneration | not counted | 19 of 65 (29%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Comparable evidence | not counted | 1 of 5 (20%) | - |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Business appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a 'high salary or other significantly high remuneration' relative to others in the field. Specifically, the evidence presented was unclear regarding the Petitioner's actual earnings versus the company's earnings, and the salary data provided was conflicting and did not demonstrate a salary significantly above average for managing real estate brokers in the relevant geographic area.
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 December 5, 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: 2, counted: 0; not counted: 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?
- 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:
Related
Similar appeals
- Retail Managementappeal dismissed, 2024
- Administrative Services Managementappeal dismissed, 2021
- Business (marketplace entrepreneur/e-commerce)appeal dismissed, 2024
- Businesscase remanded, 2024
- Business (Restaurant Management)appeal dismissed, 2023
- Businessappeal dismissed, 2021
- Civil Engineeringappeal dismissed, 2024