Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
case remandedMarketing20241 criteria counted

Viticulture and Wine Branding/Marketing

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 Viticulture and Wine Branding/Marketing (Marketing), 2024. The appeal was case remanded, 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: Awards, Membership, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 6 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

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.

Membership

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.

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.

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.

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)
Membershipnot counted1 of 19 (5%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Published material about youcounted10 of 32 (31%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contributionnot counted4 of 23 (17%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Leading rolenot counted15 of 30 (50%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remunerationnot counted4 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 Director's decision was insufficient for review because it failed to adequately address the Petitioner's response to the Request for Evidence (RFE), specifically regarding criteria related to awards, original contributions, and high remuneration. The decision lacked specific references to evidence and contained unsupported claims about the reliability of sources.

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 August 27, 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: 6, counted: 1 (Published material about you); not counted: Awards, Membership, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration.
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:

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.