Visual Effects
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 Effects (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, 1 were counted: Published material about you; not counted: Original contribution, Exhibitions, Leading role, High remuneration, Commercial success, Comparable evidence.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 7 EB-1A criteria claimed, 1 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 youcounted
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot counted
- Leading rolenot counted
- High remunerationnot counted
- Commercial successnot counted
- Comparable evidencenot counted
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.
Original contribution
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 642 cases and counted in 105 (16%). Typical AAO objection: "Original contribution: impact not shown". Counted when the contribution’s impact is shown: adoption, citation, use by others.
Exhibitions
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 226 cases and counted in 149 (66%). Counts showing work at artistic exhibitions, with venue, dates and proof of participation.
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.
High remuneration
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 346 cases and counted in 94 (27%). Counted when pay is compared to the professional and regional average, with a cited source.
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.
Comparable evidence
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 64 cases and counted in 1 (2%).
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:
| Criterion | In this case | Counted in the field | How objections were answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published material about you | counted | 43 of 126 (34%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 17 of 117 (15%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Exhibitions | not counted | 9 of 22 (41%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | not counted | 50 of 117 (43%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| High remuneration | not counted | 14 of 48 (29%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Commercial success | not counted | 0 of 12 (0%) | - |
| Comparable evidence | not counted | 0 of 12 (0%) | - |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Other appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required to establish extraordinary ability, specifically regarding original contributions, artistic exhibitions, leading/critical roles, high salary, and commercial success. The AAO also found the submitted evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
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 March 1, 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: 7, counted: 1 (Published material about you); not counted: Original contribution, Exhibitions, Leading role, High remuneration, Commercial success, Comparable evidence.
- 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: