Sports Journalism
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 Sports Journalism (Marketing), 2021. 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: Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Exhibitions, Leading role, Commercial success.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 1 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 youcounted
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot counted
- Exhibitionsnot counted
- Leading rolenot counted
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot counted
- 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.
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).
Exhibitions
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 226 cases and counted in 149 (66%). Counts showing work at artistic exhibitions, with venue, dates and proof of participation.
Leading role
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 624 cases and counted in 256 (41%). Counted when the organization is known and the role is leading or key, per the org chart and letters.
Commercial success
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 81 cases and counted in 9 (11%). Counts commercial success in the performing arts with numbers: box office, sales, charts.
The Marketing field in the database: 47 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 12 remanded, 34 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 | 10 of 32 (31%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 4 of 23 (17%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | not counted | 5 of 12 (42%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Exhibitions | not counted | 2 of 10 (20%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | not counted | 15 of 30 (50%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Commercial success | not counted | 0 of 4 (0%) | - |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Marketing appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions, artistic exhibitions, leading/critical role, and commercial success. The AAO found the evidence presented insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and being among the very top of the field.
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 15, 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: 1 (Published material about you); not counted: Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Exhibitions, Leading role, Commercial success.
- 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?
- 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: