EB-1A Appeals: Film & Television
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 87.5% of EB-1A appeals from Film & Television petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2005–2025 (n=120). The criterion most often at issue was Prizes or awards.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2024 | 9 (—) | 0 | 2 | 11 |
| 2023 | 8 (—) | 0 | 3 | 11 |
| 2022 | 8 (—) | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| 2021 | 9 (—) | 1 | 3 | 13 |
| 2020 | 9 (—) | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2019 | 5 (—) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2018 | 5 (—) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2017 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2016 | 3 (—) | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| 2014 | 4 (—) | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 2013 | 5 (—) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2012 | 5 (—) | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2011 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2009 | 8 (—) | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| 2008 | 4 (—) | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 2006 | 2 (—) | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 2005 | 6 (—) | 0 | 0 | 6 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prizes or awards | 85 | 4 | 96 | 88.5% |
| Published material about the alien | 52 | 6 | 65 | 80.0% |
| Leading or critical role | 40 | 3 | 49 | 81.6% |
| Judging | 40 | 3 | 48 | 83.3% |
| Artistic exhibitions or showcases | 30 | 3 | 39 | 76.9% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 33 | 1 | 37 | 89.2% |
| Membership in associations | 30 | 1 | 32 | 93.8% |
| High salary or remuneration | 18 | 1 | 22 | 81.8% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 14 | 0 | 14 | — |
| Commercial success in performing arts | 12 | 0 | 13 | — |
Example Decisions
Sustained2014-12-17The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner had satisfied at least three evidentiary criteri
Sustained2008-05-18The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner, a screenwriter and film director, met three regulato
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner satisfied three of the required regulatory criteria.
Sustained2016-10-12The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met three of the required evidentiary criteria: judging th
Sustained2006-06-30The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner had established the beneficiary's eligibility, c
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner's 1997 Asian Television Award did not qualify as a 'one-time major, inte
Dismissed2012-08-08The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim requ
Dismissed2023-01-10The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner failed to present 'new facts' as required. The petitioner atte
Dismissed2025-01-28The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met the required minimum of t
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the necessary sustained national or international ac
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, 2005–2025. 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 →