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 remandedScience20244 criteria counted

Traditional Chinese Medicine

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 Traditional Chinese Medicine (Science), 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: Membership, Judging, Original contribution, High remuneration; not counted: Leading role.

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
Membershipcounted
Published material about younot claimed
Judgingcounted
Original contributioncounted
Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolenot counted
High remunerationcounted
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.

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.

RFE breakdown: how to respond Criterion guide Evidence benchmarks USCIS Policy Memo PM-602-0005.1 - Evidence Evaluation Methodology for I-140 Petitions (Auto-Translated) Approved EB-1 evidence set for real estate development

The Science field in the database: 155 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 7 sustained, 30 remanded, 118 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
Membership	counted	5 of 45 (11%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Judging	counted	105 of 117 (90%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contribution	counted	33 of 123 (27%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Leading role	not counted	19 of 54 (35%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remuneration	counted	9 of 32 (28%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not meet any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet at least three (memberships, judging, original contributions, and high salary) and remanded the case for a final merits determination.

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 July 24, 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 (Membership, Judging, Original contribution, High remuneration); not counted: Leading role.
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: Leading role

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 Science 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.