Can biology & life sciences professionals get an EB-1A? What 214 AAO decisions say

Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2004–2024 · updated 2026-10-16

Between 2004 and 2024 the AAO published 214 EB-1A appeal decisions from biology & life sciences petitioners; 8 were sustained and 174 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (91 of the 187 merits dismissals, 49%). What the sustained decisions had: contributions shown to be of major significance; 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

  1. 91 of 187 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
    “The AAO found that the provided citation numbers were not sufficient to prove that the petitioner's work had a major impact rising to the level of sustained national or international acclaim.” AAO, 2019

What the 8 sustained decisions had

  1. 4 of 8 Contributions shown to be of major significance
    “The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion, 'contributions of major significance,' in addition to the two criteria conceded by the Director (judging and scholarly articles).” AAO, 2018
  2. 1 of 8 Published material about the person in major media
    “The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the Petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion, for published material about his work in professional journals, which the Director had initially denied.” AAO, 2019
  3. 1 of 8 Judging the work of others documented
    “The director had initially found the petitioner met only two criteria, but the AAO concurred on the 'judging' criterion and also found that evidence of well-cited articles and letters from experts established 'original scientific contributions of major…” AAO, 2010

Outcomes by Year

YearDismissedSustainedRemandedTotal
20245 (—)038
20231 (—)012
20224 (—)026
20212 (—)002
20205 (—)005
20194 (—)105
20185 (—)106
20163 (—)003
20157 (—)108
20147 (—)007
201318 (—)0018
201218 (—)0018
201139 (92.9%)3042
201012 (—)1013
200913 (—)1014
20083 (—)003
20072 (—)002
20063 (—)003
200522 (100.0%)0022
20041 (—)001

Criteria Breakdown

CriterionIn DismissedIn SustainedTotalDismissal Rate
Original contributions of major significance103611589.6%
Authorship of scholarly articles98811386.7%
Prizes or awards107111097.3%
Judging92810587.6%
Membership in associations7607996.2%
Published material about the alien7127792.2%
Leading or critical role5616290.3%
High salary or remuneration3703994.9%
Artistic exhibitions or showcases3003196.8%
Commercial success in performing arts2802996.6%
Sustained national or international acclaim23023100.0%
Procedural/filing14014—

Example Decisions

Sustained2010-08-24The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner met the necessary criteria for the classification. The director had initially found the petitioner met only two criteria, but the AAO concurred on the… Sustained2011-11-21The appeal was sustained because the AAO, applying the two-part Kazarian analysis, found that the petitioner met the statutory and regulatory requirements. The director had initially determined the petitioner did not… Sustained2018-02-13The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion, 'contributions of major significance,' in addition to the two criteria conceded by the Director (judging and… Sustained2011-05-20The director initially denied the petition, finding the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO sustained the appeal, stating that after reviewing the full record, including… Sustained2019-05-30The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the Petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion, for published material about his work in professional journals, which the Director had initially denied. Having met the… Dismissed2005-12-02The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility by meeting at least three of the regulatory criteria. The AAO concurred with the director that the petitioner only provided sufficient… DismissedThe motion to reconsider was granted, but the previous decision to dismiss the appeal was affirmed and the petition was ultimately denied. The petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the claimed criteria, such as… Dismissed2007-06-07The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification. The AAO found that the submitted research grants were for funding… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO determined that the submitted evidence, including recommendation letters and… Dismissed2005-06-12The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification. The evidence provided for various criteria, such as academic awards,…

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.

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