EB-1A appeals to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) rarely end in an approval. We read 24 non-precedent EB-1A decisions issued between August 10 and August 31, 2026, as published on the USCIS AAO non-precedent decisions page. Eighteen dismissed the appeal. Six withdrew the denial and remanded the case to USCIS. None approved the petition outright.
As of October 23, 2026, this is a one-month sample, not an official success rate. But the reasons repeat often enough to be useful for anyone deciding whether to appeal, refile or strengthen a first filing. Non-precedent decisions resolve only the case in front of the AAO; our guide to AAO precedent decisions explains the difference.
- Of 24 EB-1A AAO decisions issued August 10 to 31, 2026, 18 dismissed the appeal and 6 withdrew the denial and remanded; none approved the petition outright.
- Three appeals were dismissed because the Form I-290B signature was invalid, and the AAO said a deficient signature cannot be cured.
- Two decisions included findings of willful misrepresentation of a material fact.
- The AAO reviews de novo, so it can disagree with criteria USCIS had found met, as well as with denials.
- A remand is not an approval: meeting three criteria still leads to a final merits determination.
- Three dismissals came after USCIS found three criteria met; the AAO upheld the final merits denials and declined to follow Mukherji v. Miller outside Nebraska.
What did the 24 decisions decide?
| Outcome | Number | Main reason |
|---|---|---|
| Dismissed: fewer than three criteria met | 10 | Evidence did not satisfy the criteria claimed |
| Dismissed: failed the final merits determination | 3 | Criteria met, but no sustained acclaim shown |
| Dismissed: invalid Form I-290B signature | 3 | Signature not the petitioner's own |
| Dismissed with misrepresentation finding | 2 | False or inconsistent evidence |
| Withdrawn and remanded | 6 | USCIS analysis incomplete or incorrect |
| Approved outright | 0 |
All counts come from our reading of the 24 decision PDFs; the decisions are linked in the sources below.
Why were three appeals dismissed over signatures?
Because the appeal form was not personally signed. In one decision, the AAO found that the signatures on Form I-290B and Form G-28 were "substantially identical in their lines, loops, slants, spacing, pen lifts, and connecting strokes," indicating a reused image, and that "the policy does not permit an image of a handwritten signature to be electronically transposed onto a separate immigration form" (AAO, Aug. 10, 2026). In another, the handwriting resembled the preparer's (AAO, Aug. 17, 2026).
The consequence is severe. The AAO stated that if a request lacks a valid signature, "we reject, deny, or dismiss it without providing an opportunity to correct or cure a deficient signature" (AAO, Aug. 10, 2026). In a third case, the petitioner said he had "expressly authorized" counsel to reuse an earlier signature, and the appeal was still dismissed (AAO, Aug. 27, 2026). The lesson is simple: sign every form yourself, each time.
Why do evidence-based appeals fail?
Mostly because the record does not meet three criteria, and one failure is enough. In one decision the AAO explained that "because his arguments fail on any single criterion discussed above, that means he cannot numerically meet the required number of at least three criteria," so it did not decide the rest (AAO, Aug. 27, 2026). Three problems recurred:
Press that is not about the petitioner. For an athlete, the AAO held that "articles with the Petitioner's name listed in passing or that merely list the results of a competition do not equate to published material about the Petitioner" (AAO, Aug. 24, 2026).
Letters that praise without specifics. In a business case, "the letters do not identify any specific original contribution by the Petitioner or explain how his contribution is of major significance in the field" (AAO, Aug. 17, 2026). Another decision stated that "expert letters should specifically describe a petitioner's contribution and its significance to the field and state the basis of the writer's knowledge and expertise" (AAO, Aug. 17, 2026). Our guide to EB-1A recommendation letters explains how to write them.
Impact that is asserted rather than shown. In a researcher's case, a policy report offered as proof of influence cited the petitioner's work once among 1,366 citations, and the AAO noted that "major significance" connotes work that "has significantly impacted the field" (AAO, Aug. 11, 2026).
What about petitioners who met three criteria?
Three dismissals involved petitioners whom USCIS had found to meet three criteria but denied at the final merits step. In one, the record showed the petitioner was quoted in major online media, peer reviewed for journals and co-authored articles, and the AAO agreed those criteria were met but still dismissed (AAO, Aug. 26, 2026).
That petitioner argued the final merits step was invalid under Mukherji v. Miller, a Nebraska federal district court ruling. The AAO responded that the Mukherji decision "is not a binding precedential authority for the Petitioner who is in Florida," and applied the two-step review (same). For now, at the agency level, meeting three criteria is not the finish line. Our guide to the Kazarian two-step explains the framework.
Can an appeal make things worse?
Yes, in two ways. First, the AAO reviews de novo. In the athlete case, USCIS had found the published material criterion met, and the AAO disagreed (AAO, Aug. 24, 2026). In a nursing case, it notified the petitioner of deficiencies in two criteria USCIS had found she met (AAO, Aug. 24, 2026).
Second, credibility. That nursing case ended with a finding that the petitioner "willfully misrepresented facts that are material to her petition," based on problems with a submitted journal article and certificate (same). In another, the AAO said "we will also enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact," after employment histories on earlier visa applications did not corroborate the claims (AAO, Aug. 24, 2026). A misrepresentation finding can affect future immigration benefits, so every document in the record must be accurate and consistent with earlier filings.
What do the six remands show?
That the AAO does correct USCIS errors, but a remand is not a win. In a cancer researcher's case, the petitioner argued USCIS was wrong that the record lacked objective evidence of the significance of his contributions, which were supported by more than 4,000 citations and detailed expert letters, "and we agree" (AAO, Aug. 17, 2026). Other remands followed findings that USCIS "did not offer a complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence" (AAO, Aug. 12, 2026), or that a revocation relied on grounds not included in the notice of intent to revoke (AAO, Aug. 13, 2026).
Where the AAO found three criteria met, it still sent the case back for the next step, stating that "granting three initial evidentiary criteria does not suffice to establish eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability" (AAO, Aug. 25, 2026). Our guide to the final merits determination explains what happens then.
What this means for you
- Sign every immigration form personally; never reuse a signature image.
- Before appealing, check whether the denial is about the evidence itself. If it is, compare an appeal with a stronger new filing.
- Expect the AAO to re-examine criteria USCIS accepted, not only the ones you contest.
- Make sure every document is authentic and consistent with your earlier visa applications.
- Use press that is about you and letters that name specific contributions with evidence behind them.
Our guide to options after an I-140 denial compares appeals, motions and refiling.
Where to start
If you have been denied or are preparing a first filing, our free evaluation at /evaluate/ maps your record against the EB-1A criteria, and Frank, our AI assistant at /frank, finds real opportunities to strengthen weak criteria. Petitions are reviewed and filed by our partner law firm, Lai & Turner.
Sources
All checked October 23, 2026.
- USCIS, AAO Non-Precedent Decisions. Index of published decisions, filtered to I-140 (Extraordinary Ability).
- AAO EB-1A non-precedent decisions, August 2026: Aug. 10 (02), Aug. 11 (01), Aug. 12 (02), Aug. 13 (03), Aug. 17 (02), Aug. 17 (03), Aug. 17 (05), Aug. 24 (02), Aug. 24 (03), Aug. 24 (04), Aug. 26 (02), Aug. 25 (01), Aug. 27 (01), Aug. 27 (02). These are the decisions quoted; the full sample also includes the other 10 B2 decisions dated August 10 to 31, 2026, on the same index.
Frequently asked questions
What percentage of EB-1A appeals succeed at the AAO?
In the 24 decisions we read, issued between August 10 and August 31, 2026, none approved a petition outright. Six withdrew the USCIS denial and sent the case back for a new decision, and 18 dismissed the appeal. This is a small sample from one month, not an official success rate, but it shows that even a successful appeal usually means a remand rather than an approval.
Can an appeal be dismissed for a signature problem?
Yes. Three of the 24 decisions dismissed appeals because the Form I-290B signature was not valid, for example where a signature image appeared to be copied from another form and applied electronically. The AAO said that when a request lacks a valid signature, it will reject, deny or dismiss it without an opportunity to correct or cure the defect. Each person must sign their own form.
What does it mean when the AAO remands an EB-1A case?
It means the AAO withdrew the USCIS decision and sent the case back for a new one. In several of the decisions we read, the AAO found the petitioner met three criteria and remanded for a final merits determination, while stressing that meeting three criteria does not by itself establish eligibility. The petition can still be denied after the remand.
Can the AAO take away criteria USCIS already accepted?
Yes. The AAO reviews appeals de novo, meaning it looks at the record fresh. In the decisions we read, it disagreed with a USCIS finding that an athlete met the published material criterion, and it raised deficiencies in two criteria USCIS had found met for another petitioner. An appeal reopens the whole record, not only the criteria you challenge.
Is it better to appeal or refile an EB-1A?
It depends on the reason for denial. An appeal argues the existing record was enough; refiling lets you add new evidence and fix gaps. The patterns in these decisions, such as thin press and vague letters, are evidence problems that a stronger new filing can address more directly than an appeal. An attorney should compare both routes against the denial notice.
Green Card Guide AI is not a law firm and this article is not legal advice. It describes evidence-building strategy in general terms; your attorney determines what belongs in your petition and how it's argued.
