Can finance and accounting professionals get an EB-1A? What 52 AAO decisions say
Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2005–2025 · updated 2026-10-16
Between 2005 and 2025 the AAO published 52 EB-1A appeal decisions from finance & accounting petitioners; 2 were sustained and 41 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (18 of the 45 merits dismissals, 40%). Second: original contributions not shown to be of major significance (6, 13%). What the sustained decisions had: leading or critical role for distinguished organizations. 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
- 18 of 45 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
“The petitioner did not submit a brief or any new evidence to address the director's finding that they had not established the necessary sustained national or international acclaim.” AAO, 2006
- 6 of 45 Original contributions not shown to be of major significance
“Additionally, the petitioner did not establish that his work on major financial deals constituted original contributions of major significance to the field as a whole.” AAO, 2019
- 6 of 45 Membership criterion not met (no outstanding-achievement requirement)
“Furthermore, the petitioner did not establish that the association's board of directors, who granted the membership, consisted of recognized national or international experts.” AAO, 2024
What the 2 sustained decisions had
- 1 of 2 Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
“The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the Beneficiary met the 'leading or critical role' criterion, in addition to the two criteria (scholarly articles and high salary) previously acknowledged by the Director.” AAO, 2019
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 1 (—) | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 2024 | 5 (—) | 1 | 3 | 9 |
| 2022 | 4 (—) | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2021 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2020 | 9 (—) | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2019 | 4 (—) | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 2018 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2011 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2010 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2009 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2007 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2006 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2005 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Membership in associations | 26 | 1 | 30 | 86.7% |
| Prizes or awards | 23 | 2 | 29 | 79.3% |
| Leading or critical role | 23 | 1 | 28 | 82.1% |
| Judging | 21 | 2 | 25 | 84.0% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 20 | 2 | 24 | 83.3% |
| Published material about the alien | 18 | 2 | 23 | 78.3% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 17 | 2 | 22 | 77.3% |
| High salary or remuneration | 17 | 1 | 19 | — |
Example Decisions
Sustained2019-06-25The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the Beneficiary met the 'leading or critical role' criterion, in addition to the two criteria (scholarly articles and high salary) previously acknowledged by the…
Sustained2024-11-06The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the Director erred in the final merits determination. The Director had concluded the petitioner's acclaim was not 'sustained' by viewing evidence for each…
Dismissed2022-01-24The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate they met the required number of evidentiary criteria. The AAO determined that the petitioner's Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) charter did not…
Dismissed2020-11-25The motion was dismissed first on a procedural basis because the petitioner failed to submit a required statement about any judicial proceedings. On the merits, the petitioner did not establish that the prior decision…
Dismissed2020-11-24The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that she met the required three evidentiary criteria. The AAO concluded that her membership in the Chartered Institute of Management Accounting (CIMA)…
Dismissed2024-10-17The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the required number of evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the petitioner's submitted article was not 'scholarly' in nature and that the evidence…
Dismissed2024-04-08The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to challenge the director's finding regarding her intent to continue working in the U.S., thus waiving the issue. Furthermore, the AAO affirmed the director's…
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Finance & Accounting petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as peer-reviewed publications with documented scholarly reception. Dismissed cases most often lacked that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized (not merely regional or local); sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination.
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 →