EB-1A Appeals: Visual Arts
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 91.8% of EB-1A appeals from Visual Arts petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2003–2024 (n=429). The criterion most often at issue was Prizes or awards.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 9 (—) | 0 | 8 | 17 |
| 2023 | 7 (—) | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| 2022 | 14 (—) | 1 | 1 | 16 |
| 2021 | 11 (—) | 1 | 1 | 13 |
| 2020 | 13 (—) | 2 | 0 | 15 |
| 2019 | 14 (—) | 0 | 1 | 15 |
| 2018 | 9 (—) | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2017 | 9 (—) | 0 | 2 | 11 |
| 2016 | 8 (—) | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| 2015 | 10 (—) | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| 2014 | 13 (—) | 0 | 0 | 13 |
| 2013 | 17 (—) | 0 | 1 | 18 |
| 2012 | 31 (96.9%) | 1 | 0 | 32 |
| 2011 | 17 (—) | 1 | 0 | 18 |
| 2010 | 10 (—) | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| 2009 | 17 (—) | 1 | 1 | 19 |
| 2008 | 10 (—) | 1 | 0 | 11 |
| 2007 | 9 (—) | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2006 | 17 (—) | 0 | 1 | 18 |
| 2005 | 70 (95.9%) | 2 | 1 | 73 |
| 2004 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2003 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prizes or awards | 276 | 6 | 295 | 93.6% |
| Published material about the alien | 155 | 12 | 180 | 86.1% |
| Artistic exhibitions or showcases | 130 | 10 | 153 | 85.0% |
| Membership in associations | 134 | 4 | 146 | 91.8% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 93 | 8 | 108 | 86.1% |
| Judging | 74 | 8 | 91 | 81.3% |
| Leading or critical role | 60 | 6 | 73 | 82.2% |
| High salary or remuneration | 61 | 2 | 66 | 92.4% |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 54 | 5 | 63 | 85.7% |
| Sustained national or international acclaim | 49 | 0 | 54 | 90.7% |
| Commercial success in performing arts | 47 | 1 | 51 | 92.2% |
| Procedural/filing | 26 | 0 | 26 | 100.0% |
Example Decisions
Sustained2015-09-23The Director initially denied the petition at the final merits stage, finding the petitioner had not demonstrated sustai
Sustained2020-05-27The Director denied the petition on the final merits determination, even though the petitioner met three evidentiary cri
Sustained2023-03-22Although the Director found the petitioner met three initial criteria, the petition was denied based on a final merits d
Sustained2008-01-30The appeal was sustained because the AAO determined that the petitioner, an oil painting artist, did meet at least three
Sustained2009-08-25The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the director erroneously dismissed the petitioner's achievements as
Dismissed2005-05-25The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to submit a brief, evidence, or any specific arguments
Dismissed2005-05-25The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to submit a brief or any evidence to challenge the dire
Dismissed2011-08-03The 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 meet the high standard for extraordinary ability. The evidence
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary's extraordinary ability. The evidenc
Denied cases most often lacked 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, 2003–2024. 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 →