Writer and Filmmaker
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 Writer and Filmmaker (Arts), 2023. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Judging, Original contribution.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 2 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 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 younot claimed
- Judgingnot counted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- 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.
Judging
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 659 cases and counted in 491 (75%). Typical AAO objection: "Judging not actually performed / proven". Counted when the judging actually happened: an invitation plus proof you reviewed others’ work.
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.
The Arts field in the database: 343 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 12 sustained, 52 remanded, 279 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judging | not counted | 117 of 162 (72%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 14 of 119 (12%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Arts appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Petitioner failed to present 'new facts' associated with previously asserted eligibility claims, or to demonstrate eligibility at the time of filing. The motion to reopen was based on claims either not made in the original petition or appeal, or on evidence postdating the petition filing date.
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 10, 2023 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 2, counted: 0; not counted: Judging, Original contribution.
- 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.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:
Related
Similar appeals
- Writer and Filmmakerappeal dismissed, 2022
- Arts (Singer)appeal dismissed, 2020
- Wedding Photographyappeal dismissed, 2022
- Development Director (Business)appeal dismissed, 2021
- Performing Arts (Music)appeal dismissed, 2021
- Photographyappeal sustained, 2020
- Optoelectronics Research (Electrical and Computer Engineering)appeal dismissed, 2020