EB-1A Appeals: Information Technology
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 70.0% of EB-1A appeals from Information Technology petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2004–2025 (n=30). The criterion most often at issue was Authorship of scholarly articles.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 2 (—) | 0 | 4 | 6 |
| 2023 | 2 (—) | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 2022 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2021 | 4 (—) | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2020 | 3 (—) | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 2019 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 1 (—) | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 2013 | 0 (—) | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 2009 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2007 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2004 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 14 | 0 | 20 | 70.0% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 14 | 1 | 19 | — |
| High salary or remuneration | 15 | 1 | 19 | — |
| Judging | 13 | 0 | 15 | — |
| Leading or critical role | 10 | 1 | 15 | — |
| Membership in associations | 10 | 0 | 12 | — |
| Prizes or awards | 9 | 0 | 11 | — |
| Published material about the alien | 4 | 0 | 10 | — |
Example Decisions
Sustained2015-04-28The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner established eligibility by meeting at least three of
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner successfully demonstrated that the beneficiary met three o
Dismissed2009-03-27The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The evi
Dismissed2023-05-03The motion was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for at least three of the required evi
Dismissed2022-05-26The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient new evidence to establish eligibi
Dismissed2015-03-16The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility by meeting at least three of the ten r
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Information Technology petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as contributions shown to be of major significance in the field (adopted or widely cited); 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, 2004–2025. 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 →