EB-1A Appeals: Biomedical Research
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 85.0% of EB-1A appeals from Biomedical Research petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2003–2025 (n=167). The criterion most often at issue was Prizes or awards.
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
Sustained2012-08-28The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner successfully met three of the regulatory criteri
Sustained2014-06-10The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner's evidence met three of the required criteria: judgin
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the director improperly narrowed the petitioner's field from biomedical research to can
Sustained2009-06-09The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner's evidence met at least three regulatory criteria. The dec
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the petitioner successfully demonstrated eligibility under the required criteria. The A
Dismissed2006-02-22The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the required minimum of three criteria for an alien of ex
Dismissed2007-05-14The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim requ
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner's evidence was insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or interna
Dismissed2005-11-10The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO
Dismissed2013-10-09The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under the requisite number of criteria.
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Biomedical Research 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, 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 →