Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedOther20240 criteria counted

Video Producer/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 Video Producer/Production (Other), 2024. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Awards.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 1 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 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

  • Awardsnot counted
  • Membershipnot claimed
  • Published material about younot claimed
  • Judgingnot claimed
  • Original contributionnot claimed
  • Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
  • Exhibitionsnot claimed
  • Leading rolenot claimed
  • High remunerationnot claimed
  • 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.

Awards

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.

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
Awardsnot counted14 of 103 (14%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The Petitioner failed to submit new facts or evidence with the motion to reopen that would demonstrate she meets the requirements for EB-1 classification, specifically a major internationally recognized award or at least three of the alternate criteria. The motion to reconsider did not demonstrate any legal or factual error in the prior decision.

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 September 3, 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: 1, counted: 0; not counted: Awards.
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.