EB-1A Appeals: Medicine
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 89.5% of EB-1A appeals from Medicine petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2001–2025 (n=209). The criterion most often at issue was Judging.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 1 (—) | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 2024 | 9 (—) | 0 | 2 | 11 |
| 2023 | 6 (—) | 0 | 3 | 9 |
| 2022 | 7 (—) | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 2021 | 11 (—) | 2 | 2 | 15 |
| 2020 | 18 (—) | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| 2019 | 14 (—) | 3 | 0 | 17 |
| 2018 | 6 (—) | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 2017 | 8 (—) | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| 2016 | 7 (—) | 2 | 0 | 9 |
| 2015 | 8 (—) | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| 2014 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2013 | 9 (—) | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2012 | 11 (—) | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| 2011 | 7 (—) | 2 | 0 | 9 |
| 2010 | 2 (—) | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 2009 | 9 (—) | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2008 | 3 (—) | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| 2007 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2006 | 7 (—) | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 2005 | 7 (—) | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| 2004 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2003 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2001 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judging | 105 | 11 | 123 | 85.4% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 105 | 10 | 122 | 86.1% |
| Prizes or awards | 110 | 3 | 116 | 94.8% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 99 | 7 | 114 | 86.8% |
| Membership in associations | 90 | 0 | 94 | 95.7% |
| Leading or critical role | 63 | 5 | 72 | 87.5% |
| Published material about the alien | 54 | 5 | 64 | 84.4% |
| High salary or remuneration | 36 | 0 | 41 | 87.8% |
| Sustained national or international acclaim | 15 | 1 | 17 | — |
| Artistic exhibitions or showcases | 9 | 0 | 10 | — |
Example Decisions
Sustained2021-09-13The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated he met the criterion for or
Sustained2019-05-08The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner's evidence, considered in its totality, demonstr
Sustained2016-11-14The appeal was sustained because the petitioner successfully demonstrated meeting the 'contributions of major significan
Sustained2010-09-03The appeal was sustained because the AAO was persuaded that the complete record, including new documentation submitted o
Sustained2008-06-11The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner had met at least three of the regulatory criteria for
Dismissed2007-11-29The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that he meets the minimum of three regulatory criter
Dismissed2005-08-16The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The pet
Dismissed2005-09-09The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for the criteria claimed. Th
Dismissed2006-01-20The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim requ
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the claimed criteria. The
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Medicine petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as independent expert letters supporting the petition; citations from independent researchers; peer-reviewed publications in the field. Denied cases most often lacked a clearly defined proposed endeavor with specificity beyond a general field of work; 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, 2001–2025. 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 →