Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedMarketing20202 criteria counted

Visual Design/Graphic Design & Multimedia Advertising

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 Visual Design/Graphic Design & Multimedia Advertising (Marketing), 2020. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Leading role, High remuneration; not counted: Awards.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.

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 rolecounted
  • 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.

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 Marketing field in the database: 47 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 12 remanded, 34 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 counted3 of 28 (11%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Leading rolecounted15 of 30 (50%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remunerationcounted4 of 21 (19%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary personally received any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Evidence of awards received by the beneficiary's employer was insufficient, as the awards were not directly given to the beneficiary.

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 January 22, 2020 (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: 2 (Leading role, High remuneration); 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?
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

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.