Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedOther20213 criteria counted

Television Production

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 Production (Other), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 3 were counted: Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Membership, Leading role, Commercial success.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 3 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

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.

Membership

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.

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:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Membershipnot counted7 of 92 (8%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Published material about youcounted43 of 126 (34%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judgingcounted74 of 95 (78%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorshipcounted75 of 94 (80%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading rolenot counted50 of 117 (43%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Commercial successnot counted0 of 12 (0%)-

Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Other 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 his field of endeavor, despite meeting the initial evidence requirements. The evidence presented did not demonstrate a level of achievement significantly above others in 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 June 4, 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: 3 (Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Membership, 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?
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:

Related

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

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.