Retail Business Consulting
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 Retail Business Consulting (Business), 2020. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Scholarly authorship, Leading role; not counted: Original contribution.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 3 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 claimed
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot claimed
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- 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.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original contribution | not counted | 6 of 66 (9%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 34 of 55 (62%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| 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 Director failed to properly analyze the new evidence submitted with the motion to reopen regarding original contributions and did not fully explain the reasons for dismissing the motion, preventing meaningful appellate review. The decision did not determine if the required three criteria were met before assessing overall extraordinary ability.
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 April 6, 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: 3, counted: 2 (Scholarly authorship, Leading role); not counted: Original contribution.
- How did this appeal end?
- The case was remanded: the AAO withdrew the decision and sent it back to the officer - not a final approval, but not a final denial either.
- 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: