EB-1A Appeals: Business & Entrepreneurship
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 86.6% of EB-1A appeals from Business & Entrepreneurship petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2000–2025 (n=284). The criterion most often at issue was Prizes or awards.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 10 (—) | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| 2024 | 19 (63.3%) | 0 | 11 | 30 |
| 2023 | 11 (—) | 1 | 4 | 16 |
| 2022 | 7 (—) | 0 | 4 | 11 |
| 2021 | 18 (—) | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| 2020 | 23 (95.8%) | 0 | 1 | 24 |
| 2019 | 9 (—) | 3 | 2 | 14 |
| 2018 | 9 (—) | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2017 | 9 (—) | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| 2016 | 4 (—) | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| 2015 | 9 (—) | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2014 | 7 (—) | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| 2013 | 7 (—) | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| 2012 | 9 (—) | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| 2011 | 15 (—) | 0 | 0 | 15 |
| 2010 | 5 (—) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2009 | 9 (—) | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| 2008 | 7 (—) | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 2007 | 4 (—) | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 2006 | 6 (—) | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 2005 | 18 (90.0%) | 2 | 0 | 20 |
| 2001 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2000 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prizes or awards | 163 | 4 | 182 | 89.6% |
| Leading or critical role | 116 | 11 | 142 | 81.7% |
| Published material about the alien | 110 | 7 | 133 | 82.7% |
| Membership in associations | 107 | 0 | 113 | 94.7% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 95 | 6 | 113 | 84.1% |
| Judging | 88 | 3 | 101 | 87.1% |
| High salary or remuneration | 75 | 4 | 93 | 80.6% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 51 | 5 | 68 | 75.0% |
| Sustained national or international acclaim | 18 | 0 | 21 | 85.7% |
| Artistic exhibitions or showcases | 16 | 1 | 17 | — |
| Commercial success in performing arts | 16 | 0 | 16 | — |
Example Decisions
Sustained2007-06-14The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner successfully satisfied three of the regulatory criter
Sustained2005-06-26The motion to reopen was granted and the prior dismissal was withdrawn. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria:
Sustained2005-06-24On a motion to reopen, the AAO granted the motion and approved the petition. It found that the petitioner had overcome p
Sustained2019-06-06The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner met a third criterion, published material about his w
Sustained2016-11-14The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the Director erred in denying the petition. The Director incorrectly
Dismissed2005-09-07The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The A
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim requ
Dismissed2024-04-11The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the required evident
Dismissed2024-02-15The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility under the required evidentiary criteri
Dismissed2024-02-22The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met the evidentiary requireme
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Business & Entrepreneurship petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as peer-reviewed publications in the field. Denied cases most often lacked non-speculative evidence (claims were conclusory or unsupported); sufficient documentary evidence to meet the evidentiary standard.
Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2000–2025. 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 →