remanded EB-1A
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow
Neuroscience Field · 2024-05-07
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 metJudging the work of others (Met)
The Director concluded and the record supports that the Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in her field.
Scholarly articles (Met)
The Director concluded and the record supports that the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in her field.
Original contributions of major significance (Partially Met)
The Director found this unmet, but the AAO withdrew that finding, noting the Petitioner provided evidence of highly cited work and expert letters that were not properly evaluated.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The matter was remanded because the Director failed to provide a reasoned consideration of the evidence for original contributions of major significance, specifically ignoring eight expert letters and evidence that the Petitioner's articles were in the top 10% of cited works in her field. The Director's use of templated language did not satisfy the requirement to explain specific reasons for denial.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Peer Reviewed Publications
Citations
Judging Experience
Original Contributions
Reference Letters Dependent
Evidence Submitted
- 8 letters from experts in the field
- Citation history from Google Scholar
- Published research and review articles citing the Petitioner's work
- Evidence of articles being among the top 10 percent most cited in the field
- Participation as a judge of the work of others
- Authorship of scholarly articles
Similar Cases
Research Fellow
Research and Development
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-11-21
The Director found the petitioner met two criteria (original contributions, scholarly articles) but not the leading or critical role. The AAO overturned the Director's finding on the leading or critical role, concluding the petitioner did satisfy this criterion by serving as a Senior Research Fellow at a distinguished U.S. government research institute, leading projects, and supervising fellows. Therefore, the petitioner met 3 criteria and the matter was remanded for a final merits determination.
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.
Research Scientist
Research and Development · China
WeGreened EB-1A approved
New York 14 days 2025-08-14
The petition was approved based on 10 peer-reviewed journal articles, 409 citations, and the completion of at least 38 peer reviews. The evidence satisfied the EB-1A criteria for original contributions, scholarly articles, and judging the work of others.
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.
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: 2024-05-07.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 2 / 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