EB-1A Appeals: Physics
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 81.8% of EB-1A appeals from Physics petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2004–2024 (n=44). The criterion most often at issue was Judging.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2023 | 0 (—) | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 2022 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2021 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2020 | 2 (—) | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 2019 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1 (—) | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 2017 | 1 (—) | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 2016 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2011 | 1 (—) | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 2009 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2008 | 0 (—) | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2006 | 2 (—) | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 2005 | 11 (—) | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| 2004 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judging | 21 | 5 | 28 | 75.0% |
| Prizes or awards | 26 | 0 | 26 | 100.0% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 18 | 6 | 26 | 69.2% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 13 | 3 | 18 | — |
| Membership in associations | 17 | 0 | 17 | — |
Example Decisions
Sustained2017-11-28The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner satisfied four of the required evidentiary criteria,
Sustained2011-04-01The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner met the statutory and regulatory requirements for cla
SustainedThe appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met the regulatory criteria. The evidence showed he judged
Sustained2006-03-15The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the Director gave insufficient weight to key evidence. Specific
Sustained2018-04-04The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner met the final merits determination of extraordinary abilit
Dismissed2011-06-28The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the requisite extraordinary ability through extensiv
Dismissed2015-12-02The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the required three criteria for an alien of extraordinary
Dismissed2005-09-16The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the requisite sustained national or international ac
Dismissed2005-04-21The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish his specific field of extraordinary ability, having
Dismissed2005-04-28The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international acclaim requ
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Physics 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; independent expert letters attesting to the petitioner’s standing in the field. Dismissed cases most often lacked that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized (not merely regional or local); that contributions were of major significance in the field (not routine or incremental); sustained national or international acclaim in the final merits determination.
Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2004–2024. 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 →