EB-1A Appeals: Athletics
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 87.7% of EB-1A appeals from Athletics petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2001–2025 (n=440). The criterion most often at issue was Prizes or awards.
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
Sustained2006-08-10The appeal was sustained because the original revocation was based on a conclusory consular report that applied an incor
Sustained2019-02-13The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner, a professional basketball player, met three of the requir
Sustained2011-02-16The director initially determined the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability. The AAO sustai
Sustained2007-03-22The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner's evidence met several regulatory criteria, reversing the
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the beneficiary, a badminton coach, met the required number of crite
Dismissed2005-01-04The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary meets the high standard of su
Dismissed2005-05-25The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO
Dismissed2007-10-24The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim requ
Dismissed2007-10-11The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The p
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim requ
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Athletics petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as documented contracts or professional engagements. Dismissed cases most often lacked a clearly defined proposed endeavor with specificity beyond a general field of work; non-speculative evidence (claims were conclusory or unsupported); independent corroboration (evidence was self-serving or lacked third-party support).
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.
Get Your Free Strategy Preview →