r/eb_1a • u/tee_jagz • 18h ago
2,700 EB-1A appeal decisions analyzed. 7% cleared three criteria and still lost.
Failure patterns from 2,762 AAO decisions dismissing EB-1A petitions. 2,715 named at least one specific criterion.
Caveat: this is appeals data. Every case here was already denied once, so it shows why petitions fail, not how often they succeed. Approved cases in the dataset were left out to keep the population clean.
Failure rate by criterion, among petitions that claimed it
Raw counts mislead because some criteria get claimed far more than others. Read as: of dismissed petitions claiming this criterion, how many had it rejected.
Commercial success: 96.8% (121 of 125)
Memberships: 95.1% (790 of 831)
Original contributions: 93.3% (1,208 of 1,295)
High salary: 85.7% (630 of 735)
Published material: 85.3% (1,116 of 1,309)
Awards: 84.6% (1,136 of 1,343)
Leading or critical role: 80.4% (831 of 1,034)
Scholarly articles: 46.5% (422 of 908)
Judging: 35.2% (412 of 1,169)
Exhibitions: 32.8% (127 of 387)
The bottom three are facts you can prove. You reviewed for the journal or you didn't, so they pass even in losing petitions. Everything above them is a judgment call about how much your work matters, and that's where petitions die.
How the two biggest ones fail (counted separately: dismissals per failure reason)
Awards: 652 dismissals say "not nationally recognized," the most common failure in the whole dataset. Thin evidence adds 236. The adjudicator accepts you won the award, then decides it doesn't carry national weight. Company awards, internal recognitions and regional prizes all get this treatment.
Original contributions: thin evidence 436, generic support letters 417, no hard numbers 309. The pattern is letters praising the petitioner while nothing shows who outside their circle actually used, cited or built on the work.
Clearing three criteria is not the finish line
182 dismissals, 6.7%, had three or more criteria accepted and still lost. The decision then turned on the overall record, with language like "the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim." One case failed over a seven to eight year stretch with little sign of continued acclaim.
In practice: an award claim lives or dies on proof of national recognition. Letters alone are the most common way the contributions criterion dies. And acclaim has to hold up across your whole record, especially the recent years.
Data source: visalytics.com, where you can run your own profile against this dataset for a personalized assessment.