Sponsor-Investigator (unspecified)
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 Sponsor-Investigator (unspecified) (Business), 2020. 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: Scholarly authorship.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 1 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 younot claimed
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 34 of 55 (62%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Business appeals.
How to read this case
The formal gate was passed: no claimed criterion is marked "not counted", and the case reached the final-merits totality assessment. That is exactly where it was lost: at this stage the officer looks not at the number of criteria but at whether the evidence as a whole shows sustained national or international acclaim. Across the appeals base, 45% of cases are lost at final merits.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decisions (motion to reconsider) and did not submit new facts or evidence (motion to reopen). The petitioner only met the criterion of authorship of scholarly articles and did not meet the requirement of establishing at least three criteria for 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 September 24, 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: 1, counted: 1 (Scholarly authorship).
- 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.