Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Researcher In The Field Of Autonomous Systems And Robotics Engineering

Autonomous Systems And Robotics Engineering · 2024-05-09

Decision Date
2024-05-09
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

2 of 3 criteria met
Judging the work of others (Met)

The Director determined and the AAO affirmed that the Petitioner met the requirements for judging the work of others.

Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)

The Director determined and the AAO affirmed that the Petitioner met the requirements for authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.

Original contributions of major significance (Partially Met)

The Director initially found this unmet, but the AAO remanded the decision because the Director failed to properly evaluate evidence of citations, patents, and prestigious funding (NASA, NSF).

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Director's decision was withdrawn because it did not adequately explain the specific reasons for denial or address the evidence submitted in response to the RFE. The Petitioner provided evidence of scholarly articles, citation records, patents, and funding from prestigious organizations like NASA and NSF which were not sufficiently analyzed. The case was remanded for a re-evaluation of whether the Petitioner meets at least three criteria, specifically focusing on 'original contributions of major significance'.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested objective evidence of the major significance of the Petitioner's original contributions. The Petitioner submitted updated citations and evidence of funding from NASA, AFOSR, and NSF.

RFE Targets
Original contributions of major significance

Evidence

Evidence Types
Peer Reviewed Publications
Citations
Patents
Reference Letters Independent
Grants
Judging Experience
Original Contributions
Scholarly Articles
Evidence Submitted
  • Judging the work of others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv))
  • Authorship of scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi))
  • Scientific articles and citation records
  • Evidence of a patent
  • Research funding from NASA, AFOSR, and NSF
  • Testimonial letters from researchers in the field
  • Citation percentiles analysis

Similar Cases

Assistant Professor

Robotics · China

WeGreened EB-1A rfe approved
Alabama 883 days 2025-04-11
The petition was approved based on a record of 13 journal articles and 17 conference papers with 390 citations. The petitioner also demonstrated expertise through 42 peer reviews and secured research funding from prestigious agencies including NASA, AFOSR, and the NSF.
View Case

Research Scientist

Robotics · China

WeGreened EB-1A approved
California 11 days 2023-12-05
The petitioner submitted evidence of 32 conference papers, 7 peer-reviewed journal articles, and 5 preprints. He also demonstrated his expertise by conducting at least 30 peer reviews. The case was strengthened by his significant role in the field and the high applicability of his research to global robotics challenges.
View Case

Scientist

Research and Development · China

WeGreened EB-1A approved
California 391 days 2025-05-06
The petition was approved based on meeting three EB-1A criteria: scholarly articles (24 publications), judging (110+ reviews), and original contributions of major significance (787 citations and support from NSF/Meta AI). The evidence demonstrated the petitioner's standing at the forefront of the mechanical engineering field.
View Case

Others

Robotics · China

WeGreened EB-1A approved
Pennsylvania 7 days 2025-01-10
The petition was approved based on the petitioner's record of 1 peer-reviewed journal article, 8 conference articles, and 3 preprints in top robotics venues. A significant citation count of 624 demonstrated a major impact on the field. Additionally, the petitioner's 22 peer-review invitations for leading journals and conferences satisfied the judging criterion for EB-1A.
View Case

Frequently Asked Questions

A remanded EB-1A petition means the case was sent back to the field office for further review. This happens when procedural errors are found or additional evidence should be considered. It is neither an approval nor a denial.

Browse More Cases

More remanded cases More Research and Development cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-05-09.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 2 / 3
Evidence Types 8

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299

Related Pages

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