remanded EB-1A
Deputy Director
Criminology And Forensic Examination · 2024-07-17
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 metAwards (Met)
The Director previously determined the Petitioner fulfilled the awards criterion.
Judging (Met)
The Petitioner acted as a judge of the work of others by peer-reviewing manuscripts for a scientific journal as a deputy editor-in-chief.
Scholarly Articles (Met)
The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications such as Medicni Perspektivi and Journal of Education, Health and Sport.
Original Contributions (Not Met)
Claimed by Petitioner but not specifically decided upon in this appeal as three other criteria were already met.
Leading or Critical Role (Not Met)
Claimed by Petitioner but not specifically decided upon in this appeal.
High Salary (Not Met)
Claimed by Petitioner but not specifically decided upon in this appeal.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The Petitioner met the judging criterion by peer-reviewing manuscripts for a scientific journal as a deputy editor-in-chief. He met the scholarly articles criterion through publications in 'Medicni Perspektivi' and 'Journal of Education, Health and Sport'. Additionally, he provided detailed plans for future work in firearm-related crime investigation and surgical repair of gunshot injuries, satisfying the prospective benefit requirement.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Peer Reviewed Publications
Awards
Judging Experience
Evidence Submitted
- Peer reviewed manuscripts for a scientific journal (2022-2023)
- Deputy editor-in-chief of a scientific journal
- Authorship of scholarly articles in 'Medicni Perspektivi' (2021)
- Authorship of scholarly articles in 'Journal of Education, Health and Sport' (2021)
- Research relating to technological advancements in firearm-related crime investigation
- Research regarding bullet wound channels for surgical repair protocols
Similar Cases
Others
Others
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-05-15
The Petitioner satisfied at least three regulatory criteria: published material, leading or critical role, and scholarly articles. The AAO found the Petitioner's documentation of article authorship met the scholarly articles criterion and his detailed plans satisfied the requirement to continue work in his area of expertise. The case was remanded for a final merits determination.
Research Scientist
Research and Development · Colombia
WeGreened EB-1A approved
Massachusetts 59 days 2025-07-21
The approval was based on a strong scholarly record including 20 peer-reviewed articles and 5 preprints, 1,539 citations demonstrating global influence, and 8 verified peer reviews. The legal team successfully rebutted a NOID to secure the final approval.
Education Administrator
Education
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-05-02
The Petitioner met three criteria: judging (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)), scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)), and leading or critical role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)). Specifically, his roles as Acting President and Vice President for Academic Affairs at G-U-S-T- were deemed leading or critical for an organization with a distinguished reputation.
Forensic Scientist
Defense · Ukraine
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-11-25
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of weapons development/forensics. Despite providing evidence of awards (almost two dozen government commendations), memberships (Expert Qualification Commission), judging roles (deputy editor-in-chief for four issues), publications (3 book chapters, 2 monographs, 12 articles), a patent, 8 standards, recommendation letters, and salary, USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the high standard. Specifically, the awards were internal government honors, memberships and judging roles lacked evidence of national/international recognition, publications lacked impact/citation history, the patent/standards lacked demonstrated significance, and letters/salary did not establish widespread acclaim or top-tier standing.
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: 2024-07-17.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 3
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