Can musicians get an EB-1A? What 288 AAO decisions say

Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2002–2025 · updated 2026-10-16

Between 2002 and 2025 the AAO published 288 EB-1A appeal decisions from music petitioners; 13 were sustained and 216 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (113 of the 249 merits dismissals, 45%). Second: awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized (31, 12%). What the sustained decisions had: published material about the person in major media; awards with documented national or international recognition. 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. 113 of 249 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
    “The AAO also noted that the petitioner could not rely on recognition as a musician or composer to demonstrate acclaim as a sound designer or engineer, as they are considered different areas of expertise.” AAO, 2006
  2. 31 of 249 Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized
    “The AAO agreed that the petitioner met the criteria for judging others' work and for showcasing his work, but found the submitted awards were not proven to be nationally or internationally recognized.” AAO, 2016

What the 13 sustained decisions had

  1. 2 of 13 Published material about the person in major media
    “The AAO concluded that the petitioner satisfied the criteria for nationally recognized awards, published materials in major media, and judging the work of others.” AAO, 2018
  2. 1 of 13 Awards with documented national or international recognition
    “The AAO concluded that the petitioner satisfied the criteria for nationally recognized awards, published materials in major media, and judging the work of others.” AAO, 2018
  3. 1 of 13 Contributions shown to be of major significance
    “The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner met three regulatory criteria: published material, display of work, and original contributions.” AAO, 2017

Outcomes by Year

YearDismissedSustainedRemandedTotal
20253 (—)014
202413 (—)0215
202310 (—)0414
20229 (—)0110
202113 (—)1216
202018 (85.7%)1221
201911 (—)1315
20184 (—)105
20178 (—)109
20164 (—)004
20159 (—)009
201412 (—)0012
201316 (—)1017
201217 (—)1018
20115 (—)106
20106 (—)006
200922 (95.7%)0123
20085 (—)106
20076 (—)118
20066 (—)129
200513 (—)2015
20042 (—)002
20032 (—)002
20022 (—)002

Criteria Breakdown

CriterionIn DismissedIn SustainedTotalDismissal Rate
Prizes or awards220924689.4%
Published material about the alien1281315383.7%
Membership in associations97010790.7%
Leading or critical role8079683.3%
Judging7399477.7%
Artistic exhibitions or showcases7699381.7%
Original contributions of major significance7168484.5%
Commercial success in performing arts3133881.6%
Sustained national or international acclaim3013781.1%
High salary or remuneration2803580.0%
Authorship of scholarly articles2002483.3%

Example Decisions

Sustained2005-12-08The director initially denied the petition for failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that the petitioner, a Music Director/Pianist/Vocal Coach, did meet… SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. The decision details how the petitioner satisfied the criteria for judging… Sustained2017-03-31The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined the petitioner met three regulatory criteria: published material, display of work, and original contributions. Upon a final merits determination, the AAO found that… Sustained2013-05-20The Director initially denied the petition, acknowledging that the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but concluding that they had not established the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. On… Sustained2018-01-25The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner, a composer and lyricist, met the required minimum of three evidentiary criteria, contrary to the Director's finding of only one. The AAO concluded that… Dismissed2005-05-25The appeal was summarily dismissed on procedural grounds. The petitioner and her counsel both indicated they would submit a brief and/or evidence but failed to do so within the seven months following the appeal filing.… Dismissed2005-05-25The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the original decision. The petitioner and counsel indicated they would… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the claimed criteria for an alien of extraordinary ability. The evidence for membership in an association did not show that… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements to prove sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence for membership in an association pertained to his company,… Dismissed2003-04-18The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility by meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found that the petitioner only met two criteria, determining the evidence…

Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2002–2025. 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 →