remanded EB-1A
Carbohydrate Chemist Research Scientist
Carbohydrate Chemist Research Scientist · 2024-08-27
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 metParticipation as a judge of the work of others (Met)
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied the requirements for participating as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Authorship of scholarly articles in major trade publications or other major media (Met)
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied the requirements for writing scholarly articles that were published in major trade publications.
Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field (Not Met)
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met the requirements for original scientific or scholarly contributions of major significance, and the AAO noted the Director did not adequately discuss the contents of recommendation letters submitted for this criterion.
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence (Not Met)
The Director entirely overlooked the Petitioner's claim and newly submitted evidence regarding this criterion, which the AAO identified as a deficiency.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter due to several deficiencies. The Director failed to properly assess submitted evidence, specifically overlooking the Petitioner's claim and additional evidence for the 'nationally or internationally recognized prize or award' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)). Furthermore, regarding the 'original scientific or scholarly contributions of major significance' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)), the Director acknowledged recommendation letters but did not discuss their contents or explain why they fell short of supporting the claim.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Judging Experience
Scholarly Articles
Original Contributions
Awards
Reference Letters Dependent
Evidence Submitted
- evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the field
- evidence of scholarly articles published in major trade publications
- evidence of original scientific or scholarly contributions of major significance
- evidence of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award
- letters of recommendation
Similar Cases
Professor
Chemicals
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-08-21
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the 10 EB-1A criteria. While the Director found criteria related to published material (iv) and scholarly articles (vi) met, the criterion for original contributions of major significance (v) was not. The AAO affirmed that evidence, including citation data for published articles, conference presentations, and expert letters, did not demonstrate major significance or sustained national/international acclaim, distinguishing moderate significance from the required major significance.
Biochemist
Biotechnology · China
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-11-12
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish original scientific contributions of major significance to the field (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)). Citation data from Clarivate Analytics, indicating articles in the top 1% and 10% of 'Biology & Biochemistry', was deemed unreliable due to a disclaimer and overly broad categorization. Expert letters and media coverage were found insufficient to demonstrate major significance beyond specific research groups or general usefulness. Funding from 'major Chinese agencies' also did not inherently prove major significance. Consequently, the petitioner did not meet the minimum three criteria for extraordinary ability.
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
Research and Development · China
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-09-03
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate a one-time achievement and failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the awards were not proven to be nationally or internationally recognized, membership in the Chinese Society of Particuology lacked proper translation and proof of outstanding achievement requirements, the patent's major significance was not documented, and the Petitioner's role at the organization was not shown to be leading or critical.
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: 2024-08-27.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 2 / 3
Evidence Types 5
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