EB-1A Appeals: Music
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 87.5% of EB-1A appeals from Music petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2002–2025 (n=288). The criterion most often at issue was Prizes or awards.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 3 (—) | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 2024 | 13 (—) | 0 | 2 | 15 |
| 2023 | 10 (—) | 0 | 4 | 14 |
| 2022 | 9 (—) | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| 2021 | 13 (—) | 1 | 2 | 16 |
| 2020 | 18 (85.7%) | 1 | 2 | 21 |
| 2019 | 11 (—) | 1 | 3 | 15 |
| 2018 | 4 (—) | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| 2017 | 8 (—) | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| 2016 | 4 (—) | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2015 | 9 (—) | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2014 | 12 (—) | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| 2013 | 16 (—) | 1 | 0 | 17 |
| 2012 | 17 (—) | 1 | 0 | 18 |
| 2011 | 5 (—) | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| 2010 | 6 (—) | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 2009 | 22 (95.7%) | 0 | 1 | 23 |
| 2008 | 5 (—) | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| 2007 | 6 (—) | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| 2006 | 6 (—) | 1 | 2 | 9 |
| 2005 | 13 (—) | 2 | 0 | 15 |
| 2004 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2003 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2002 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prizes or awards | 220 | 9 | 246 | 89.4% |
| Published material about the alien | 128 | 13 | 153 | 83.7% |
| Membership in associations | 97 | 0 | 107 | 90.7% |
| Leading or critical role | 80 | 7 | 96 | 83.3% |
| Judging | 73 | 9 | 94 | 77.7% |
| Artistic exhibitions or showcases | 76 | 9 | 93 | 81.7% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 71 | 6 | 84 | 84.5% |
| Commercial success in performing arts | 31 | 3 | 38 | 81.6% |
| Sustained national or international acclaim | 30 | 1 | 37 | 81.1% |
| High salary or remuneration | 28 | 0 | 35 | 80.0% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 20 | 0 | 24 | 83.3% |
Example Decisions
Sustained2006-04-10The appeal was sustained because the petitioner addressed the specific grounds for denial. He submitted a statement deta
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner, a violist and professor, successfully met three of the re
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner satisfied at least three criteria for extraordinary abilit
Sustained2005-12-08The director initially denied the petition for failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner provided sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the
Dismissed2005-05-25The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of la
Dismissed2005-05-25The appeal was summarily dismissed on procedural grounds. The petitioner and her counsel both indicated they would submi
Dismissed2005-10-20The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The e
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim by mee
Dismissed2024-07-17The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner did not specifically identify any error of law or fact in the
Denied cases most often lacked non-speculative evidence (claims were conclusory or unsupported); sufficient documentary evidence to meet the evidentiary standard; evidence of national importance (as opposed to local or personal benefit).
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.
Get Your Free Strategy Preview →