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.

All EB-1A appeals

case remandedMarketing20244 criteria counted

Strategic Communications and Global Development

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 Strategic Communications and Global Development (Marketing), 2024. The appeal was case remanded, 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: High remuneration.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 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 contributioncounted
Scholarly authorshipcounted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolecounted
High remunerationnot counted
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.

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide EB-2 NIW RFE Exhibit Index Example Including High-Salary Evidence Checklist - O-1 / EB-1A / EB-2 NIW

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	counted	4 of 23 (17%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	counted	5 of 12 (42%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading role	counted	15 of 30 (50%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remuneration	not counted	4 of 21 (19%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Marketing appeals.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The initial denial was based on the petitioner not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria (original contributions, leading/critical role, and scholarly articles) but remanded the case for a final merits determination to assess sustained national/international acclaim and whether the petitioner is in the very top of their 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 May 20, 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: 5, counted: 4 (Published material about you, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship, Leading role); not counted: High remuneration.
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:

RFE: High remuneration

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 Marketing 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.