Why does the AAO dismiss EB-1A appeals from athletics petitioners?

Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (202 of 374 merits dismissals); Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized (50 of 374 merits dismissals)

Is the 87.7% dismissal rate the EB-1A approval rate for athletics?

No. These are published AAO decisions on appeals of denials, not all USCIS adjudications. Approved petitions are never appealed, so the dismissal rate on appeal is not an initial-filing approval rate. It shows which arguments the AAO rejected and which it accepted.

Can athletes and coaches get an EB-1A? What 440 AAO decisions say

Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2001–2025 · updated 2026-10-16

Between 2001 and 2025 the AAO published 440 EB-1A appeal decisions from athletics petitioners; 22 were sustained and 318 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (202 of the 374 merits dismissals, 54%). Second: awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized (50, 13%). What the sustained decisions had: final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field; published material about the person in major media. These are appeals of denials, not all adjudications, so the dismissal rate is not an initial-filing approval rate; it shows which arguments the AAO rejected on appeal and which it accepted.

What the decisions say

Grounds for dismissal, by frequency

202 of 374 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
“The director, and subsequently the AAO, determined that the petitioner did not submit extensive documentation to prove sustained national or international acclaim in the field of athletics.” AAO, 2012
50 of 374 Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized
“The AAO found the petitioner met the criteria for lesser awards and published material about his work, but did not meet the criteria for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement or for commanding a high salary.” AAO, 2018

What the 22 sustained decisions had

9 of 22 Final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field
“The AAO concluded that this evidence, along with his high national ranking, demonstrated he has sustained national or international acclaim and has risen to the very top of his field.” AAO, 2015
3 of 22 Published material about the person in major media
“The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner, a professional baseball player, satisfied at least three evidentiary criteria, specifically awards, published material, critical role, and high salary.” AAO, 2023
2 of 22 Awards with documented national or international recognition
“The AAO found that the petitioner's evidence met three of the required criteria: receipt of lesser prizes or awards, original athletic contributions of major significance, and performing in a leading or critical role.” AAO, 2010

Outcomes by Year

Year	Dismissed	Sustained	Remanded	Total
2025	2 (—)	0	1	3
2024	19 (79.2%)	0	5	24
2023	15 (68.2%)	1	6	22
2022	13 (—)	0	3	16
2021	7 (—)	1	2	10
2020	16 (—)	1	1	18
2019	15 (—)	2	1	18
2018	23 (95.8%)	1	0	24
2017	11 (—)	1	0	12
2016	9 (—)	2	0	11
2015	15 (—)	2	0	17
2014	12 (—)	0	0	12
2013	16 (—)	2	0	18
2012	34 (91.9%)	2	1	37
2011	16 (—)	2	0	18
2010	15 (—)	1	0	16
2009	29 (96.7%)	1	0	30
2008	12 (—)	0	1	13
2007	9 (—)	1	1	11
2006	7 (—)	2	1	10
2005	19 (—)	0	0	19
2004	3 (—)	0	0	3
2001	1 (—)	0	0	1

Criteria Breakdown

Criterion	In Dismissed	In Sustained	Total	Dismissal Rate
Prizes or awards	367	20	413	88.9%
Published material about the alien	172	19	208	82.7%
Membership in associations	165	14	195	84.6%
Leading or critical role	105	16	135	77.8%
Sustained national or international acclaim	86	10	103	83.5%
Original contributions of major significance	80	9	98	81.6%
Judging	75	4	87	86.2%
High salary or remuneration	57	8	72	79.2%
Authorship of scholarly articles	34	3	38	89.5%
Artistic exhibitions or showcases	28	2	31	90.3%
Commercial success in performing arts	21	2	23	91.3%
Procedural/filing	12	0	12	—

Example Decisions

SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found the evidence of record sufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility. The evidence, including impressive national and world chess rankings, an international… Sustained2015-01-28The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner satisfied three of the ten regulatory criteria, whereas the Director only found two were met. In the final merits determination, the AAO concluded that the… Sustained2018-11-20The Director initially denied the petition because the petitioner allegedly failed to demonstrate he would continue to work in his field in the United States. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that the petitioner… Sustained2015-10-28The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met three regulatory criteria. He provided evidence of winning nationally and internationally recognized awards, membership in a selective national team that… Sustained2013-03-14The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner, a squash player and instructor, had met the minimum eligibility requirements. The AAO found that the petitioner's evidence satisfied at least… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary, a squash instructor, has sustained national or international acclaim as a coach. The AAO determined that the beneficiary's… Dismissed2006-04-14The appeal was dismissed because the AAO concurred with the director's finding that the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO determined that the petitioner's field, women's… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner's documented acclaim was as a competitive dancer, which the AAO considered a different field of expertise from her proposed work as a dance instructor and coach. The AAO… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary had sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found derogatory information, which the petitioner failed to rebut,… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three required criteria. Although the AAO found the petitioner did meet the criterion for a nationally recognized award, it determined the…

In sustained EB-1A appeals for Athletics petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as awards shown to be nationally or internationally recognized in the field; published material about the petitioner in major media or professional publications; contributions shown to be of major significance in the field (adopted or widely cited). Dismissed cases most often lacked that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized (not merely regional or local); that contributions were of major significance in the field (not routine or incremental); sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination.

Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2001–2025. These are appeals, not all USCIS adjudications; approval rates here are not initial-filing approval rates. Read our full methodology.

Filing your own EB-1A? See how your CV maps to the criteria — free strategy preview.
Get Your Free Strategy Preview →