Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Research Fellow

Dermatology · 2025-01-24

Decision Date
2025-01-24
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 concluded, and the record supports, that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion by participating as a judge of the work of others in her field.

Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)

The Director concluded, and the record supports, that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion by authoring scholarly articles.

Memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievements (Not Met)

The Director failed to address evidence submitted for this criterion, which the AAO identified as clear error. The status is currently unmet as the Director did not evaluate it.

Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance (Not Met)

The Director's determination did not adequately address the Petitioner's specific claims and evidence, including expert letters and comparative citation evidence. The Director incorrectly stated no comparative citation evidence was submitted and relied on an unrecorded Google Scholar review. The status is currently unmet as the Director did not properly evaluate it.

Commanding a high salary or other significantly high remuneration (Not Met)

The Director failed to address evidence submitted for this criterion, which the AAO identified as clear error. The status is currently unmet as the Director did not evaluate it.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Director's decision was withdrawn and remanded because it failed to adequately address three of the five claimed criteria: memberships, high salary, and original contributions. The Director overlooked evidence for memberships and high salary, and for original contributions, relied on templated language, did not address specific claims or expert letters, and incorrectly stated no comparative citation evidence was submitted, instead using an unrecorded Google Scholar review. The AAO also found the Director erred in concluding the petitioner did not demonstrate intent to continue work.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested evidence related to the Petitioner's membership in a professional association and her salary. The Petitioner submitted the requested evidence and addressed her eligibility under these criteria in her RFE response letter.

RFE Targets
Memberships in associations requiring outstanding achievementsCommanding a high salary or other significantly high remuneration

Evidence

Evidence Types
Reference Letters Dependent
Peer Reviewed Publications
Citations
Professional Memberships
High Salary
Judging Experience
Original Contributions
Evidence Submitted
  • five letters from experts in her field
  • publication record and citation history from Google Scholar
  • published research and review articles citing her work
  • information on reputation and impact factors of journals
  • evidence of highly cited articles
  • documentation on research contributions
  • at least twenty scholarly articles ranked among top 10 percent most cited
  • membership in a professional association
  • salary evidence

Similar Cases

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.

Postdoctoral Researcher

Biotechnology

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-09-30
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements, specifically not demonstrating a major, internationally recognized award or satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. While two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) were met, the critical 'original contributions of major significance' criterion was not, as evidence like citation counts (e.g., top ten percent in Biology & Biochemistry) and recommendation letters lacked objective corroboration of widespread influence or significant impact on the field, and a Department of Defense funding grant was deemed for future research, not past recognition.

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.

Researcher

Biotechnology

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-10-04
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for at least three of the ten extraordinary ability criteria. For 'original contributions of major significance', USCIS found her work original but lacked evidence of major impact on the field, noting that citations alone (e.g., two papers with more than 28 citations out of nine published) did not inherently prove major significance, especially when expert letters failed to delineate field-wide impact. The AAO also noted that her research on auranofin, while original, was later found to lead to life-threatening conditions in subsequent studies, diminishing its positive contribution. For 'leading or critical role', the Petitioner failed to provide independent, objective evidence establishing the distinguished reputation of her employer as of the filing date, relying instead on self-promotional material and post-filing evidence. The AAO also rejected post-filing evidence for establishing initial eligibility.

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 Healthcare cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2025-01-24.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 2 / 3
Evidence Types 7

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 919
Success Rate 53.0%
Sustained 487
Dismissed 315

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