Television Hosting
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 Television Hosting (Other), 2021. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 3 were counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging; not counted: Leading role, Commercial success.
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, 3 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- 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.
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 Other field in the database: 219 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 3 sustained, 40 remanded, 176 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 | counted | 14 of 103 (14%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Published material about you | counted | 43 of 126 (34%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | counted | 74 of 95 (78%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Leading role | not counted | 50 of 117 (43%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Commercial success | not counted | 0 of 12 (0%) | - |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Other appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Director failed to conduct a proper final merits determination, inadequately weighing the evidence and applying an incorrect standard for national acclaim. The decision lacked sufficient explanation for the denial and did not fully address the submitted evidence.
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 June 16, 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: 5, counted: 3 (Awards, Published material about you, Judging); not counted: Leading role, Commercial success.
- 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:
Related
Similar appeals
- Television Hostingappeal dismissed, 2023
- Television Hostingappeal dismissed, 2022
- digital media strategy and operationsappeal dismissed, 2023
- Data Analyticsappeal dismissed, 2025
- Poker (Writing and Lecturing)appeal dismissed, 2020
- Architectureappeal dismissed, 2020
- Medical Consultantappeal dismissed, 2021