remanded EB-1A RFE Issued
Biologist
Biology · 2022-11-22
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 metJudging the work of others (Met)
The Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field through peer review for scientific journals.
Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)
The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in the field in major trade publications or other major media.
Original contributions of major significance (Met)
The Petitioner's work on aphid gene clusters is widely cited (hundreds of times) and supported by expert letters confirming its impact on the field.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The Petitioner satisfied the 'original contributions' criterion by providing evidence of hundreds of citations (including one article with 119 citations) and expert letters from professors detailing how his research on gene clusters in aphids guided their work. The AAO withdrew the denial because the Director ignored the probative value of these citation metrics and expert testimonials. However, a remand was necessary for a final merits determination to evaluate sustained national or international acclaim.
Request for Evidence (RFE)
Successfully AddressedThe RFE challenged whether the Petitioner's original contributions were of major significance; the Petitioner responded with citation data and expert letters.
RFE Targets
Original contributions of major significance
Evidence
Evidence Types
Peer Reviewed Publications
Citations
Reference Letters Independent
Judging Experience
Evidence Submitted
- Hundreds of citations to published original scholarly articles (Google Scholar)
- One specific article on aphids cited 119 times
- Authorship of scholarly articles in major media
- Participation as a judge of the work of others (peer review for scientific journals)
- Reference letters from professors in the field
Similar Cases
Research Scientist
Research and Development · India
USCIS EB-1A remanded
Texas 2024-07-25
The Petitioner satisfied three criteria: judging (peer review), original contributions (1,100+ citations with three articles cited over 100 times), and scholarly articles. The AAO withdrew the Director's denial because the evidence cumulatively met the regulatory threshold for original contributions of major significance. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim.
Research Scientist
Agriculture
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2025-01-16
The Petitioner met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. She authored approximately 20 peer-reviewed articles with a significant number of citations. Expert letters confirmed her 'pioneer studies' in post-thaw recovery and her development of a unique computational pipeline for metabolome-transcriptome associations.
Postdoctoral Researcher
Biotechnology · India
WeGreened EB-1A rfe approved
Washington 114 days 2025-06-17
The petition was approved based on 14 peer-reviewed journal articles and 431 citations demonstrating significant influence in plant genetics. Additionally, the petitioner completed 30 peer reviews for international journals and secured funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Indian Department of Biotechnology.
Postdoctoral Researcher
Agriculture
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-10-02
The Director's decision was remanded because the explanation for denying the 'original contributions of major significance' criterion was insufficient, particularly regarding the evaluation of citation data and reference letters. The AAO found the Petitioner met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but not two others (published material, leading/critical role). The Director failed to adequately explain why the submitted evidence for original contributions was insufficient, preventing an effective appeal.
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
Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2022-11-22.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 4
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 919
Success Rate 53.0%
Sustained 487
Dismissed 315
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist