remanded EB-1A
Research Scientist
Cancer Biology Researcher · India · 2024-07-25
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 submitted email correspondence confirming the completion of peer reviews for scholarly journals.
Original contributions of major significance (Met)
The Petitioner demonstrated major significance through over 1,100 citations and high percentile rankings for several articles.
Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)
The Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner met this criterion through his published research papers.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
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.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Peer Reviewed Publications
Citations
Reference Letters Dependent
Judging Experience
Original Contributions
Evidence Submitted
- Peer review of manuscripts for scholarly journals
- Over 1,100 citations of published work (Google Scholar)
- Three articles cited more than 100 times each
- H-index of 17
- Authorship of scholarly articles
- Expert recommendation letters from various universities
Similar Cases
Research Scientist
Biotechnology · Germany
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-09-27
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. While she met the 'scholarly articles' criterion (publishing in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and PLOS One), she did not provide sufficient evidence for 'awards' (a poster prize at EAACI lacked specific award details or criteria, and the RFE for primary evidence was not resolved) or 'original contributions of major significance' (52 cumulative citations across three articles were not shown to be unusually high for her field, and expert letters lacked specific corroborating details of major impact or widespread implementation). The AAO concluded she had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim.
Research Scientist
Research and Development · China
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-05-23
The Petitioner's 960 citations (893 since 2018) and 14 publications were considered routine for the field and not indicative of being at the very top. Peer review for 15 journals was noted, but evidence failed to show this set him apart from other researchers. The original contributions were recognized as valuable but lacked documentation of major significance or broad impact on the field.
Research Scientist
Biotechnology · Turkey
WeGreened EB-1A approved
Utah 5 days 2025-04-02
The petition was approved based on meeting at least three EB-1A criteria, including authorship of 13 scholarly articles and 330 citations. The petitioner also demonstrated significant judging experience by reviewing 18 scholarly articles. Furthermore, the research was backed by prestigious funding from the NIH, DOD, and international foundations, proving the original and significant nature of his contributions.
Research Scientist
Research and Development
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2022-11-22
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.
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: 2024-07-25.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 5
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist