Can performing arts professionals get an EB-1A? What 319 AAO decisions say

Published AAO non-precedent decisions, 2003–2025 · updated 2026-10-16

Between 2003 and 2025 the AAO published 319 EB-1A appeal decisions from performing arts petitioners; 7 were sustained and 239 dismissed. The most common ground for dismissal: not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits) (149 of the 281 merits dismissals, 53%). Second: awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized (45, 16%). What the sustained decisions had: awards with documented national or international recognition; published material about the person in major media. 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. 149 of 281 Not shown to be among the small percentage at the very top of the field (final merits)
    “The petitioner repeated previous arguments regarding the requirement of a final merits determination, which the AAO found to be consistent with case law and official USCIS policy.” AAO, 2022
  2. 45 of 281 Awards not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized
    “The AAO found that the submitted awards were not proven to be nationally significant, and the petitioner did not show she had sustained her acclaim after arriving in the U.S.” AAO, 2005
  3. 29 of 281 Membership criterion not met (no outstanding-achievement requirement)
    “Furthermore, she did not establish that her memberships in associations required outstanding achievements as judged by experts, or that the publications featuring her work constituted major media.” AAO, n.d.

What the 7 sustained decisions had

  1. 2 of 7 Awards with documented national or international recognition
    “The AAO found that the petitioner's Canadian theatre awards satisfied the 'lesser nationally recognized awards' criterion, his work on various productions met the 'display at artistic exhibitions or showcases' criterion, and his role as chief choreographer…” AAO, 2018
  2. 2 of 7 Published material about the person in major media
    “The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria: published materials about her work, commanding a significantly high salary as a model (28 times higher than the level two wage), and evidence of commercial success in the performing arts based on a film role…” AAO, 2005
  3. 2 of 7 Final merits: among the small percentage at the top of the field
    “Upon final merits determination, this evidence was sufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim and that the petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of his field.” AAO, 2018

Outcomes by Year

YearDismissedSustainedRemandedTotal
20255 (—)005
202414 (70.0%)0620
20236 (—)006
20229 (—)0110
20215 (—)117
202018 (85.7%)0321
201921 (95.5%)0122
201816 (—)1017
201714 (—)0014
20168 (—)008
20156 (—)006
20149 (—)0110
20137 (—)007
201214 (—)0014
20119 (—)2011
20105 (—)005
200922 (100.0%)0022
20082 (—)002
20075 (—)016
20063 (—)003
200539 (92.9%)3042
20041 (—)001
20031 (—)001

Criteria Breakdown

CriterionIn DismissedIn SustainedTotalDismissal Rate
Prizes or awards242626093.1%
Published material about the alien126514487.5%
Membership in associations119213091.5%
Leading or critical role8649689.6%
Artistic exhibitions or showcases8449588.4%
Judging7729085.6%
Original contributions of major significance5025787.7%
Commercial success in performing arts3844486.4%
High salary or remuneration3134273.8%
Sustained national or international acclaim2903582.9%
Authorship of scholarly articles3003196.8%
Motion to reopen/reconsider23023100.0%

Example Decisions

Sustained2005-04-05The appeal was sustained because the AAO considered the petitioner's work as both a fashion model and an actress. The director had incorrectly separated the two fields. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria:… SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner met three of the required regulatory criteria, overturning the director's denial. The AAO found sufficient evidence of the petitioner's original… Sustained2021-09-22The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the Director incorrectly diminished the weight of the Petitioner's 20-year-old National Film Award and failed to give proper weight to the totality of the evidence. The AAO… SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the petitioner successfully demonstrated that he met at least three of the regulatory criteria for an alien of extraordinary ability. The AAO found that the petitioner provided… Sustained2018-01-25The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner, a dancer and choreographer, successfully met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the petitioner's Canadian… Dismissed2022-10-06The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the required standard. The petitioner did not establish that the AAO's previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or… Dismissed2005-07-05The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The submitted awards were from youth competitions and were not recent, and lower rankings were not… Dismissed2005-05-27The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence submitted for awards lacked proof of national significance, the published material… Dismissed2005-05-27The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence submitted for awards was deemed local in scope and lacked proof of significance. The single… DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide sufficient, credible evidence to meet the regulatory criteria. Evidence for claimed awards was insufficient, there was no proof that membership in…

Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2003–2025. 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 →