Can film & television professionals get an EB-1A? What 120 AAO decisions say

Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2005–2025 · updated 2026-10-16

Between 2005 and 2025 the AAO published 120 EB-1A appeal decisions from film & television petitioners; 5 were sustained and 96 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (33 of the 103 merits dismissals, 32%). Second: awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized (25, 24%). 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

  1. 33 of 103 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
    “The director determined that the petitioner had not submitted extensive documentation demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim, and the AAO upheld this decision.” AAO, 2011
  2. 25 of 103 Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized
    “The AAO re-evaluated the 'lesser awards' criterion, previously approved by the Director, and determined the evidence did not prove the awards were nationally or internationally recognized.” AAO, 2017

What the 5 sustained decisions had

  1. 2 of 5 Published material about the person in major media
    “The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met three of the required evidentiary criteria: judging the work of others, published material about his work, and performing in a leading role for his distinguished film production company.” AAO, 2016
  2. 2 of 5 Final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field
    “After a final merits determination, the AAO concluded the totality of the evidence confirmed the petitioner's sustained national acclaim and status as one of the small percentage at the top of his field.” AAO, 2016
  3. 1 of 5 Judging the work of others documented
    “The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met three of the required evidentiary criteria: judging the work of others, published material about his work, and performing in a leading role for his distinguished film production company.” AAO, 2016

Outcomes by Year

YearDismissedSustainedRemandedTotal
20252 (—)002
20249 (—)0211
20238 (—)0311
20228 (—)008
20219 (—)1313
20209 (—)009
20195 (—)005
20185 (—)005
20172 (—)002
20163 (—)104
20144 (—)105
20135 (—)005
20125 (—)005
20112 (—)002
20098 (—)008
20084 (—)105
20062 (—)103
20056 (—)006

Criteria Breakdown

CriterionIn DismissedIn SustainedTotalDismissal Rate
Prizes or awards8549688.5%
Published material about the alien5266580.0%
Leading or critical role4034981.6%
Judging4034883.3%
Artistic exhibitions or showcases3033976.9%
Original contributions of major significance3313789.2%
Membership in associations3013293.8%
High salary or remuneration1812281.8%
Authorship of scholarly articles14014—
Commercial success in performing arts12013—

Example Decisions

Sustained2021-08-20The appeal was sustained because the AAO disagreed with the Director's final merits determination. The AAO found that the petitioner's consistent receipt of awards and nominations, the featuring of his work at major… Sustained2006-06-30The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner had established the beneficiary's eligibility, contrary to the director's findings. The AAO found the petitioner met the criterion for published… Sustained2016-10-12The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met three of the required evidentiary criteria: judging the work of others, published material about his work, and performing in a leading role for his… Sustained2014-12-17The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner had satisfied at least three evidentiary criteria, including performing in a leading or critical role and judging the work of others. In the final… Sustained2008-05-18The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner, a screenwriter and film director, met three regulatory criteria. The evidence demonstrated the petitioner's receipt of significant awards from major… Dismissed2005-07-05The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO concurred with the director's findings that the petitioner did not personally receive awards,… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for an alien of extraordinary ability. The evidence provided for the 'awards' criterion, a… Dismissed2022-06-09The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the minimum threshold of three evidentiary criteria. The AAO concluded the petitioner only satisfied one criterion (display of work at artistic… Dismissed2022-05-19The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that they met the minimum of three required evidentiary criteria for this classification. While the Director acknowledged the petitioner met the criteria… Dismissed2021-09-14The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner failed to resolve inconsistencies in the record regarding her receipt of a national award for a television program. Despite submitting new evidence for other…

Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2005–2025. 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 →