Urban Game Design
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 Urban Game Design (Arts), 2024. 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: Judging, Exhibitions, Leading role.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 3 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
- Awardsnot claimed
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot claimed
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionscounted
- Leading rolecounted
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
The Arts field in the database: 343 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 12 sustained, 52 remanded, 279 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judging | counted | 117 of 162 (72%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Exhibitions | counted | 130 of 160 (81%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | counted | 45 of 161 (28%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Arts appeals.
How to read this case
The record of this case has no criterion marked "not counted", yet it never reached the final-merits stage. That happens when the dispute was resolved another way - for example, the case was sent back to the officer - and the AAO did not record a verdict on each criterion. Use the decision excerpt and the similar cases below.
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 director imposed additional requirements not specified in the regulations for judging and artistic exhibitions, and found the petitioner met those criteria. However, the AAO did not make a final merits determination and remanded the case for that purpose.
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 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: 3, counted: 3 (Judging, Exhibitions, 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.