EB-1A Appeals: Chemistry
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 87.3% of EB-1A appeals from Chemistry petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2001–2024 (n=63). The criterion most often at issue was Judging.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 2 (—) | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 2023 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2022 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2021 | 4 (—) | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2020 | 6 (—) | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 2019 | 6 (—) | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 2018 | 2 (—) | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| 2016 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2015 | 0 (—) | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2012 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2010 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2009 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2008 | 0 (—) | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2007 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2006 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2005 | 6 (—) | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 2003 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2001 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judging | 38 | 7 | 46 | 82.6% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 35 | 7 | 43 | 81.4% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 34 | 3 | 38 | 89.5% |
| Prizes or awards | 27 | 2 | 30 | 90.0% |
| Membership in associations | 23 | 0 | 23 | 100.0% |
| Published material about the alien | 20 | 0 | 20 | 100.0% |
Example Decisions
Sustained2008-01-02The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner's evidence satisfied at least three of the regul
Sustained2018-04-04The appeal was sustained because after a final merits determination, the AAO found the petitioner had demonstrated extra
Sustained2015-09-11The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner met the necessary evidentiary criteria, contrary
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner met three of the required evidentiary criteria, inclu
SustainedJAN 0 2008The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner's evidence met the necessary criteria for an alien of
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO
Dismissed2020-05-28The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The
Dismissed2001-10-27The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under at least three of the required reg
Dismissed2010-08-19The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish the requisite extraordinary ability as a chemistry res
Dismissed2005-01-26The appeal was dismissed because the director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or in
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Chemistry 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); 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, 2001–2024. 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 →