Can business owners and entrepreneurs get an EB-1A? What 284 AAO decisions say
Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2000–2025 · updated 2026-10-16
Between 2000 and 2025 the AAO published 284 EB-1A appeal decisions from business & entrepreneurship petitioners; 12 were sustained and 217 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (96 of the 235 merits dismissals, 41%). Second: awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized (28, 12%). What the sustained decisions had: final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field; leading or critical role for distinguished organizations. 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
- 96 of 235 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
“The AAO concluded that the petitioner's assertions about his company's leadership and product superiority were not sufficiently supported by the evidence in the record to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and prove he was at the very…” AAO, 2020
- 28 of 235 Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized
“The petitioner did not demonstrate that the beneficiary personally received the submitted awards, which were granted to his company, or that an internal company award constituted national or international recognition.” AAO, 2007
What the 12 sustained decisions had
- 4 of 12 Final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field
“Upon final merits review, the AAO concluded that the totality of the evidence—including his published articles, speaking invitations, and role advising the UK Ministry of Justice—demonstrated sustained national acclaim and established that he is at the top…” AAO, 2019
- 3 of 12 Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
“It found that the petitioner had overcome previous concerns by submitting new evidence establishing the organization's distinguished reputation, thus satisfying the 'leading or critical role' criterion.” AAO, 2005
- 2 of 12 Awards with documented national or international recognition
“It also re-evaluated the beneficiary's salary and found it met the 'high remuneration' criterion, which, combined with the previously accepted 'awards' criterion, established the beneficiary's eligibility.” AAO, 2005
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% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 95 | 6 | 113 | 84.1% |
| Membership in associations | 107 | 0 | 113 | 94.7% |
| 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
Sustained2009-12-01The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the evidence of record sufficient to establish eligibility. The petitioner submitted extensive evidence documenting well-cited scholarly articles and books, a leading and…
Sustained2017-07-26The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner met the required minimum of three evidentiary criteria, contrary to the Director's initial finding of only one. The AAO found sufficient evidence…
Sustained2019-01-18The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary criteria, contrary to the Director's initial finding of only one. The AAO determined the petitioner demonstrated receipt…
Sustained2005-06-26The motion to reopen was granted and the prior dismissal was withdrawn. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria: the beneficiary had received nationally recognized awards, she performed a leading role for an…
Sustained2005-06-24On a motion to reopen, the AAO granted the motion and approved the petition. It found that the petitioner had overcome previous concerns by submitting new evidence establishing the organization's distinguished…
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the evidence submitted did not meet the regulatory criteria. The articles about the beneficiary were not from major media, one was a paid endorsement, and others were dated after the…
Dismissed2005-08-15The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The submitted evidence for awards was found to be local recognition, based on monetary contributions…
Dismissed2005-09-08The appeal was dismissed because the director determined the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence for membership in associations did not demonstrate that they required…
Dismissed2006-01-31The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that his membership in professional organizations, such as the American Institute of Certified Management Accountants (IMA) and the Association for…
Dismissed2010-08-13The appeal was dismissed because the director determined the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's extraordinary ability or submitted extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim.…
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Business & Entrepreneurship petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as published material about the petitioner in major media or professional publications; contributions shown to be of major significance in the field (adopted or widely cited); 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); that contributions were of major significance in the field (not routine or incremental); sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination.
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 →