Can biomedical researchers get an EB-1A? What 167 AAO decisions say
Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2003–2025 · updated 2026-10-16
Between 2003 and 2025 the AAO published 167 EB-1A appeal decisions from biomedical research petitioners; 12 were sustained and 115 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (75 of the 142 merits dismissals, 53%). Second: membership criterion not met (no outstanding-achievement requirement) (28, 20%). What the sustained decisions had: contributions shown to be of major significance; judging the work of others documented. 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
- 75 of 142 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
“The AAO determined that while the submitted articles related to the petitioner's work, they were not 'about' the petitioner himself, as they did not mention him by name in the body of the text, which is required to demonstrate national or international…” AAO, n.d.
- 28 of 142 Membership criterion not met (no outstanding-achievement requirement)
“Additionally, his memberships in professional societies did not require outstanding achievements, and citations to his work were not considered published material about him.” AAO, 2005
- 15 of 142 Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized
“Specifically, the petitioner did not demonstrate that his awards were recognized for excellence beyond the awarding institutions or that his research had a major impact on the field as a whole.” AAO, 2017
What the 12 sustained decisions had
- 9 of 12 Contributions shown to be of major significance
“Additionally, her original scientific contributions were deemed of major significance, supported by numerous testimonial letters from experts and a substantial number of citations to her published work.” AAO, n.d.
- 8 of 12 Judging the work of others documented
“The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner successfully met three of the regulatory criteria: judging the work of others, making original contributions, and authoring scholarly articles.” AAO, 2012
- 2 of 12 Final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field
“Following a final merits determination, the AAO concluded that the petitioner's extensive documentation demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and showed that he had risen to the very top of his field.” AAO, 2014
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 4 (—) | 0 | 6 | 10 |
| 2023 | 4 (—) | 1 | 3 | 8 |
| 2022 | 4 (—) | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 2021 | 7 (—) | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| 2020 | 13 (—) | 0 | 0 | 13 |
| 2019 | 4 (—) | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2018 | 9 (—) | 2 | 0 | 11 |
| 2017 | 5 (—) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2016 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 3 (—) | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| 2014 | 1 (—) | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 2013 | 6 (—) | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 2012 | 4 (—) | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| 2011 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 3 (—) | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| 2009 | 5 (—) | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| 2008 | 5 (—) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2007 | 5 (—) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2006 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2005 | 24 (100.0%) | 0 | 0 | 24 |
| 2004 | 4 (—) | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2003 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prizes or awards | 98 | 4 | 102 | 96.1% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 63 | 14 | 85 | 74.1% |
| Judging | 58 | 13 | 78 | 74.4% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 56 | 10 | 75 | 74.7% |
| Membership in associations | 60 | 0 | 60 | 100.0% |
| Published material about the alien | 50 | 1 | 51 | 98.0% |
| Leading or critical role | 16 | 1 | 19 | — |
Example Decisions
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the director improperly narrowed the petitioner's field from 'biomedical research' to 'cancer research.' This error caused the director to exclude significant evidence related to the…
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner satisfied at least three of the regulatory criteria. The decision highlights the petitioner's role on editorial boards as evidence of judging the work…
Sustained2018-10-23The Director denied the petition based on a final merits determination, even though the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. The appeal was sustained because the AAO, upon de novo review, found the totality of the…
Sustained2014-06-10The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner's evidence met three of the required criteria: judging the work of others, original scientific contributions of major significance, and authorship of…
Sustained2009-06-09The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner's evidence met at least three regulatory criteria. The decision explicitly found that the petitioner satisfied the criteria for judging the work of others…
Dismissed2005-07-13The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner's evidence was insufficient. The submitted award was determined to be a local academic honor rather than a nationally recognized prize. Furthermore, evidence for other…
Dismissed2005-04-14The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The director found the evidence, such as student scholarships and a pending membership in an association…
Dismissed2005-04-14The appeal was dismissed because the director determined the petitioner did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for an alien of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided for…
Dismissed2005-10-19The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO determined the petitioner's awards were limited to entry-level postdoctoral fellows and lacked…
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim as required for the classification. The AAO concurred with the director's findings that the petitioner's…
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Biomedical Research petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as contributions shown to be of major significance in the field (adopted or widely cited); independent citations documenting the impact of the petitioner’s work; peer-reviewed publications with documented scholarly reception. Dismissed cases most often lacked that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized (not merely regional or local); published material specifically about the petitioner (not the employer or field generally); that contributions were of major significance in the field (not routine or incremental).
Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2003–2025. 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 →