EB-1A Appeals: Fashion & Design
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 85.7% of EB-1A appeals from Fashion & Design petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 1999–2024 (n=154). The criterion most often at issue was Prizes or awards.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prizes or awards | 85 | 4 | 93 | 91.4% |
| Published material about the alien | 74 | 14 | 93 | 79.6% |
| 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
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found the evidence of record sufficient to establish eligibility. The petitione
Sustained2015-11-19The appeal was sustained because the Director's revocation of the initially approved petition was found to be flawed, pa
Sustained2019-04-02The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner met a third evidentiary criterion, artistic displays,
Sustained2020-05-27The Director initially denied the petition based on the final merits determination, despite acknowledging the petitioner
Sustained2020-11-25The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met the required threshold of three evidentiary criteria,
Dismissed2009-08-26The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish she had received nationally or internationally recog
Dismissed2005-09-21The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the requ
Dismissed2005-07-11The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under at least three of the regulatory c
Dismissed2024-04-26The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary met the initial evidence requir
Dismissed2024-08-08The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for at least three of the required evi
Denied cases most often lacked non-speculative evidence (claims were conclusory or unsupported); sufficient documentary evidence to meet the evidentiary standard.
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.
Get Your Free Strategy Preview →