How common are denied EB-1A petitions?

EB-1A petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

dismissed EB-1A

An Individual Of Extraordinary Ability In The Field Of Stage Construction And Engineering As It Applies To Art, Theatre, And Film Production

Q: How does the Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production industry affect EB-1A petition outcomes?

The Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production sector has unique considerations for EB-1A petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

Stage Construction And Engineering As It Applies To Art, Theatre, And Film Production · 2024-10-01

Decision Date

2024-10-01

This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

3 of 3 criteria met

Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Met)

The Director found this criterion met, but the published material was limited to 2023 and 2024, failing to demonstrate sustained acclaim over a long period.

Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Met)

The Director found this criterion met based on one article published in 1990, but the record did not establish how this single article demonstrated being at the top of the field or sustained acclaim, especially given the lack of citations.

Evidence of having performed a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation (Met)

The Director found this criterion met, but the leading or critical role appeared limited to 2014, without evidence of how the Petitioner may have sustained any acclaim acquired thereby.

Evidence of original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field (Not Met)

The record established contributions of significance to employers but not major significance to the broader field of Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production, thus failing to show the Petitioner is at the very top of the field.

Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field (Not Met)

The record lacked probative evidence of salaries or remuneration of others in the field, making it impossible to establish that the Petitioner's salary was high in relation to peers or indicative of being at the very top of the field.

Why This Petition Was Denied

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting three initial criteria. Evidence of published material about the Petitioner was limited to 2023-2024, failing to show sustained acclaim over a long period. A single article published in 1990 lacked evidence of citations or sustained acclaim. A leading or critical role in 2014 also lacked evidence of sustained acclaim. Contributions to employers were noted, but major significance to the broader field of Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production was not established. Furthermore, the record lacked comparative salary data to prove a high salary in relation to others in the field, which would indicate being at the very top.

Evidence

Evidence Types

Media Coverage

Scholarly Articles

Leading Role

Evidence Submitted

copies of published material about the Petitioner
authorship of scholarly articles
leading or critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation

Similar Cases

Others

USCIS EB-1A remanded

2024-10-15

The Director's decision was withdrawn because the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Petitioner had satisfied a third evidentiary criterion, high salary, in addition to the two criteria (authorship of scholarly articles and leading or critical role) previously acknowledged by the Director. This fulfillment of three criteria overcame the initial basis for denial, necessitating a remand for the Director to conduct a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Entrepreneur

Information Technology

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded

2024-12-26

The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director's analysis was insufficient. The decision did not adequately explain the reasons for concluding that the Petitioner failed to satisfy five claimed criteria (lesser awards, published materials, original contributions, leading or critical role, and high salary), nor did it discuss the evidence submitted in response to the RFE. The Director's analysis regarding the Petitioner's intent to continue working was also found to be copied verbatim from the RFE, indicating a lack of proper evaluation of the submitted evidence.

Unknown Position

Unknown Industry · Russia

USCIS EB-1A remanded

2024-10-21

The Director's decision was withdrawn because the AAO found that the Petitioner met the criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)), in addition to the two criteria (scholarly articles and display of work) previously acknowledged by the Director. This brings the total met criteria to three, satisfying the initial evidence requirement. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim and status at the top of the field.

Data Scientist

Information Technology

USCIS EB-1A dismissed

2024-08-20

The appeal was dismissed because, despite the Petitioner satisfying three initial criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading role), the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The activities cited, such as judging, authoring articles, and holding a leading role, were primarily limited to a short period (2021-2023, mostly 2023) immediately preceding the petition filing in 2023, failing to show a 'career of acclaimed work.' Additionally, memberships in BCS and IEEE were not deemed to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, and the high salary claim lacked comparison to top-level peers with similar experience and responsibilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

A dismissed EB-1A petition means USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the eligibility criteria. Common reasons include weak documentation, failure to meet the required number of criteria, or insufficient evidence of the claimed qualifications. Petitioners can refile with stronger evidence or explore alternative visa categories.

Browse More Cases

More dismissed cases More Others cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-10-01.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed

Criteria Met 3 / 3

Evidence Types 3

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 919

Success Rate 53.0%

Sustained 487

Dismissed 315

EB-1A Overview All EB-1A Cases EB-1A Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist