Why does the AAO dismiss EB-1A appeals from fashion & design petitioners?

Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (47 of 129 merits dismissals); Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized (15 of 129 merits dismissals)

Is the 85.7% dismissal rate the EB-1A approval rate for fashion & design?

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 fashion & design professionals get an EB-1A? What 154 AAO decisions say

Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 1999–2024 · updated 2026-10-16

Between 1999 and 2024 the AAO published 154 EB-1A appeal decisions from fashion & design petitioners; 13 were sustained and 118 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (47 of the 129 merits dismissals, 36%). Second: awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized (15, 12%). What the sustained decisions had: published material about the person in major media; final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field. 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

47 of 129 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
“The AAO concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and did not prove he was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.” AAO, 2014
15 of 129 Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized
“The AAO found that the petitioner's awards were not proven to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence, as they were for junior-level competition or for participation.” AAO, 2020

What the 13 sustained decisions had

5 of 13 Published material about the person in major media
“The appeal was sustained because the AAO, upon de novo review, determined the petitioner met three required evidentiary criteria: published material, display of her work, and serving in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations.” AAO, 2018
5 of 13 Final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field
“Upon a final merits determination, the AAO concluded that the petitioner's work revitalizing major shoe brands, coupled with expert testimony, demonstrated sustained national acclaim and placed her at the very top of her field.” AAO, 2016
4 of 13 Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
“The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner met three of the regulatory criteria: published material, a leading or critical role, and display of work at artistic showcases.” AAO, 2016

Outcomes by Year

Year	Dismissed	Sustained	Remanded	Total
2024	13 (—)	0	4	17
2023	11 (—)	0	1	12
2022	3 (—)	0	1	4
2021	6 (—)	0	0	6
2020	13 (—)	4	0	17
2019	9 (—)	1	0	10
2018	6 (—)	1	0	7
2017	3 (—)	0	0	3
2016	6 (—)	3	0	9
2015	2 (—)	2	0	4
2014	5 (—)	1	0	6
2013	2 (—)	0	0	2
2012	4 (—)	0	0	4
2010	1 (—)	0	0	1
2009	8 (—)	0	0	8
2008	3 (—)	0	0	3
2006	2 (—)	0	0	2
2005	18 (85.7%)	1	2	21
2004	2 (—)	0	0	2
1999	1 (—)	0	0	1

Criteria Breakdown

Criterion	In Dismissed	In Sustained	Total	Dismissal Rate
Published material about the alien	74	14	93	79.6%
Prizes or awards	85	4	93	91.4%
Artistic exhibitions or showcases	44	7	57	77.2%
Leading or critical role	36	9	50	72.0%
High salary or remuneration	37	7	47	78.7%
Judging	37	2	44	84.1%
Original contributions of major significance	36	5	43	83.7%
Membership in associations	40	1	43	93.0%
Commercial success in performing arts	21	2	25	84.0%
Authorship of scholarly articles	15	0	17	—
Sustained national or international acclaim	14	0	14	—

Example Decisions

Sustained2005-04-05The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met three of the required criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO determined that there were published materials about her in major media, that her… Sustained2020-08-26The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner, a fashion model, met three required evidentiary criteria, contrary to the Director's initial finding. The AAO determined that evidence of appearances… Sustained2019-04-02The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion, artistic displays, in addition to the two previously accepted by the Director (published material and high salary).… Sustained2016-08-25The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner met three of the regulatory criteria: published material, a leading or critical role, and display of work at artistic showcases. Upon a final merits… Sustained2016-07-06The initial denial was based on the petitioner meeting only two of the required three criteria. The AAO found that the petitioner did in fact meet a third criterion, 'published material,' by being featured in a major… Dismissed1999-05-17The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that she met the evidentiary criteria for an alien of extraordinary ability. The AAO found her media coverage was limited and not indicative of… Dismissed2005-04-26The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the 'published materials' criterion. Evidence submitted was either published after the filing date, focused on the games rather than the beneficiary, or… Dismissed2005-07-01The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim by meeting at least three evidentiary criteria. The evidence for an award lacked proof of its national… Dismissed2005-09-02The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner, a model, failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence submitted regarding her beauty pageant titles was deemed insufficient because she… Dismissed2005-11-16The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence submitted for the awards criterion was found to represent local recognition at best, and its…

In sustained EB-1A appeals for Fashion & Design 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). 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, 1999–2024. 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 →