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
- Awardsnot counted
- Membershipnot counted
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingnot claimed
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot counted
- High remunerationnot counted
- 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.
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:
| Criterion | In this case | Counted in the field | How objections were answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | not counted | 3 of 28 (11%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Membership | not counted | 1 of 19 (5%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Published material about you | counted | 10 of 32 (31%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 4 of 23 (17%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Leading role | not counted | 15 of 30 (50%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| High remuneration | not counted | 4 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
- Sports Journalismappeal dismissed, 2023
- Sports Journalismappeal dismissed, 2021
- Marketing Executive (Media and Communication)appeal dismissed, 2025
- Marketingcase remanded, 2024
- Public Relationsappeal sustained, 2021
- Strategic Communications and Global Developmentcase remanded, 2024
- Athletics (Bodybuilding)appeal dismissed, 2020