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 dismissedEngineering20214 criteria counted

Robotics

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 Robotics (Engineering), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 4 were counted: Published material about you, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role; not counted: Awards, Judging.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 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 counted
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about youcounted
Judgingnot counted
Original contributioncounted
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.

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide BCS Fellowship interview prep guide, Apr 2026 EB-1A green card requirements checklist - extraordinary ability, intent to work, future benefit

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

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
Awards	not counted	5 of 40 (13%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
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	counted	18 of 67 (27%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	counted	52 of 65 (80%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	counted	24 of 45 (53%)	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 demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of robotics. While he has authored scholarly articles, made original contributions, and holds a leading role in a robotics company, the evidence does not establish that his achievements are reflective of a career of acclaimed work.

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 March 29, 2021 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?: Criteria claimed: 6, counted: 4 (Published material about you, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role); not counted: Awards, 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:

RFE: Awards RFE: Judging

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.