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.

appeal dismissedEngineering20204 criteria counted

Wireless Engineering

AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa

Updated: September 10, 2026Author: Alina Kanametova

This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Wireless Engineering (Engineering), 2020. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 4 were counted: Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 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 claimed
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about youcounted
Judgingcounted
Original contributioncounted
Scholarly authorshipcounted
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolenot claimed
High remunerationnot claimed
Commercial successnot claimed
Comparable evidencenot claimed

The Engineering field in the database: 94 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 19 remanded, 74 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	22 of 48 (46%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judging	counted	51 of 65 (78%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contribution	counted	18 of 67 (27%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorship	counted	52 of 65 (80%)	breakdowns for this criterion (6)

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

How to read this case

The formal gate was passed: no claimed criterion is marked "not counted", and the case reached the final-merits totality assessment. That is exactly where it was lost: at this stage the officer looks not at the number of criteria but at whether the evidence as a whole shows sustained national or international acclaim. Across the appeals base, 45% of cases are lost at final merits.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim, and is not among the small percentage at the very top of the field. While the petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria, the final merits determination found the acclaim insufficient.

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 May 28, 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: 4, counted: 4 (Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship).
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.

Terms in this case:RFE (request for evidence)final merits AAO (appeals office)

All EB-1A appeals O-1 / EB-1A criteria Analyze my case Which visa fits

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

Talent visa for Engineering What is the US talent visa

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.