EB-1A Appeals: Engineering
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 84.2% of EB-1A appeals from Engineering petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2003–2025 (n=202). The criterion most often at issue was Original contributions of major significance.
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
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner satisfied at least three regulatory criteria. Evidence of
Sustained2018-12-20The appeal was sustained because the AAO concluded that the petitioner demonstrated eligibility in the final merits dete
Sustained2018-10-16The appeal was sustained because, upon final merits determination, the AAO found the petitioner had demonstrated sustain
Sustained2009-10-26The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated that he meets at least thre
Sustained2005-06-22The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the service center director did not fully assess all the relevant ev
Dismissed2005-05-27The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim requ
Dismissed2024-05-10The appeal was dismissed because it was an appeal of the Director's dismissal of a motion to reopen, not the original pe
Dismissed2019-02-04The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met at least three of the required evident
Dismissed2023-06-30The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that they met the minimum evidentiary requirement
Dismissed2024-11-18The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner, a petroleum engineer, failed to demonstrate eligibility for at least th
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Engineering petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as patents or proprietary contributions. Denied cases most often lacked non-speculative evidence (claims were conclusory or unsupported); evidence that benefits extend beyond the petitioner's own work or employer; 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 →