EB-1A Appeals: Biology & Life Sciences
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 92.5% of EB-1A appeals from Biology & Life Sciences petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2004–2024 (n=214). The criterion most often at issue was Original contributions of major significance.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 5 (—) | 0 | 3 | 8 |
| 2023 | 1 (—) | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 2022 | 4 (—) | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| 2021 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2020 | 5 (—) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2019 | 4 (—) | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 2018 | 5 (—) | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| 2016 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2015 | 7 (—) | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| 2014 | 7 (—) | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 2013 | 18 (—) | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| 2012 | 18 (—) | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| 2011 | 39 (92.9%) | 3 | 0 | 42 |
| 2010 | 12 (—) | 1 | 0 | 13 |
| 2009 | 13 (—) | 1 | 0 | 14 |
| 2008 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2007 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2006 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2005 | 22 (100.0%) | 0 | 0 | 22 |
| 2004 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original contributions of major significance | 103 | 6 | 115 | 89.6% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 98 | 8 | 113 | 86.7% |
| Prizes or awards | 107 | 1 | 110 | 97.3% |
| Judging | 92 | 8 | 105 | 87.6% |
| Membership in associations | 76 | 0 | 79 | 96.2% |
| Published material about the alien | 71 | 2 | 77 | 92.2% |
| Leading or critical role | 56 | 1 | 62 | 90.3% |
| High salary or remuneration | 37 | 0 | 39 | 94.9% |
| Artistic exhibitions or showcases | 30 | 0 | 31 | 96.8% |
| Commercial success in performing arts | 28 | 0 | 29 | 96.6% |
| Sustained national or international acclaim | 23 | 0 | 23 | 100.0% |
| Procedural/filing | 14 | 0 | 14 | — |
Example Decisions
Sustained2011-03-21The appeal was sustained because the AAO disagreed with the director's analysis. The AAO found that the director's deter
Sustained2010-08-24The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner met the necessary criteria for the classification. Th
Sustained2018-02-13The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion, 'contribution
Sustained2011-05-20The director initially denied the petition, finding the petitioner had not established sustained national or internation
Sustained2019-05-30The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the Petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion, for published material
Dismissed2005-09-09The appeal was dismissed primarily on procedural grounds, as the petitioner's main argument was that a Request for Evide
Dismissed2024-10-04The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate she met the required three evidentiary criteria. T
Dismissed2012-02-08The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish the requisite extraordinary ability. The director dete
Dismissed2011-03-11The appeal was dismissed because while the petitioner met the technical requirement of submitting evidence for three cri
Dismissed2011-07-19The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the requisite extraordinary ability. The director de
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Biology & Life Sciences petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as peer-reviewed publications in the field. Denied cases most often lacked sufficient documentary evidence to meet the evidentiary standard.
Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2004–2024. 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 →