Why does the AAO dismiss EB-1A appeals from engineering petitioners?

Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (78 of 168 merits dismissals); Original contributions not shown to be of major significance (21 of 168 merits dismissals); Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized (19 of 168 merits dismissals); Membership criterion not met (no outstanding-achievement requirement) (18 of 168 merits dismissals)

Is the 84.2% dismissal rate the EB-1A approval rate for engineering?

No. These are published AAO decisions on appeals of denials, not all USCIS adjudications. Approved petitions are never appealed, so the dismissal rate on appeal is not an initial-filing approval rate. It shows which arguments the AAO rejected and which it accepted.

Can engineers get an EB-1A? What 202 AAO decisions say

Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2003–2025 · updated 2026-10-16

Between 2003 and 2025 the AAO published 202 EB-1A appeal decisions from engineering petitioners; 11 were sustained and 155 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (78 of the 168 merits dismissals, 46%). Second: original contributions not shown to be of major significance (21, 12%). 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

78 of 168 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
“The letters of support described the potential importance of his research but did not demonstrate that his work had already been widely implemented or had a remarkable impact, thus failing the final merits determination.” AAO, 2024
21 of 168 Original contributions not shown to be of major significance
“While the 'judging' criterion was met, the evidence for 'original contributions' did not establish that the beneficiary's work had risen to the level of major significance in the field as a whole.” AAO, 2019
19 of 168 Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized
“The AAO determined that his professional engineering licenses were not nationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence, and his membership in an association did not require outstanding achievements of its members.” AAO, 2016
18 of 168 Membership criterion not met (no outstanding-achievement requirement)
“The AAO determined that his professional engineering licenses were not nationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence, and his membership in an association did not require outstanding achievements of its members.” AAO, 2016

What the 11 sustained decisions had

4 of 11 Contributions shown to be of major significance
“The evidence submitted, including letters of support from experts and documentation showing numerous citations to the beneficiary's published work, established that the beneficiary has made original scientific contributions of major significance in the…” AAO, 2012
3 of 11 Judging the work of others documented
“The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, authorship, and performing a critical role.” AAO, 2018
2 of 11 Final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field
“The AAO found that the petitioner's 11 patents utilized by companies, her consistent peer-review work for highly-rated journals, and numerous published articles, when viewed in totality, established that she has sustained acclaim and risen to the very top…” AAO, 2018

Outcomes by Year

Year	Dismissed	Sustained	Remanded	Total
2025	1 (—)	0	2	3
2024	23 (79.3%)	0	6	29
2023	8 (—)	1	6	15
2022	5 (—)	1	2	8
2021	14 (—)	0	1	15
2020	16 (—)	0	1	17
2019	12 (—)	0	0	12
2018	8 (—)	3	0	11
2017	5 (—)	1	0	6
2016	3 (—)	0	0	3
2015	5 (—)	0	0	5
2014	4 (—)	0	0	4
2013	6 (—)	0	0	6
2012	3 (—)	2	0	5
2011	1 (—)	0	0	1
2010	1 (—)	0	0	1
2009	5 (—)	1	0	6
2008	7 (—)	0	0	7
2007	2 (—)	0	0	2
2006	3 (—)	0	0	3
2005	19 (90.5%)	2	0	21
2004	2 (—)	0	0	2
2003	2 (—)	0	0	2

Criteria Breakdown

Criterion	In Dismissed	In Sustained	Total	Dismissal Rate
Original contributions of major significance	96	11	122	78.7%
Judging	90	8	114	78.9%
Prizes or awards	100	5	113	88.5%
Authorship of scholarly articles	76	6	99	76.8%
Membership in associations	78	4	89	87.6%
Published material about the alien	66	3	73	90.4%
Leading or critical role	54	4	68	79.4%
High salary or remuneration	37	1	44	84.1%
Sustained national or international acclaim	8	0	10	—

Example Decisions

SustainedFEB 24The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner had provided sufficient objective evidence to support his claims of making contributions of major significance. This evidence included national awards… Sustained2018-10-16The appeal was sustained because, upon final merits determination, the AAO found the petitioner had demonstrated sustained acclaim and had risen to the top of his field. The decision was based on the petitioner's… Sustained2017-03-10The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the totality of the evidence demonstrated the petitioner's extraordinary ability. The petitioner received a national award in China twice, played a key role in… Sustained2012-02-10The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the beneficiary meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for classification. The evidence submitted, including letters of support from experts and documentation… Sustained2018-12-20The appeal was sustained because the AAO concluded that the petitioner demonstrated eligibility in the final merits determination. While the Service Center Director agreed the petitioner met three initial criteria, they… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification. The AAO found the evidence submitted did not meet the regulatory… Dismissed2005-08-12The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification. The AAO agreed with the director that the petitioner's academic awards… Dismissed2008-08-12The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification. The AAO agreed with the director that the petitioner's evidence, such… DismissedThe motion was granted but the appeal was ultimately dismissed because the petitioner's evidence was insufficient. The AAO determined that a 'Certificate of Achievement' from a former employer was internal recognition,… Dismissed2005-06-24The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that his awards were nationally or internationally recognized. The director found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the…

In sustained EB-1A appeals for Engineering 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); 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.

Filing your own EB-1A? See how your CV maps to the criteria — free strategy preview.
Get Your Free Strategy Preview →