Architect And Urban Designer

The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner initially only met two of the required three criteria (published material and leading role). However, the AAO found that the Petitioner's 2022 remuneration of RMB 1,958,142, as evidenced by income tax records, qualified her for the high salary criterion, satisfying the minimum three criteria. Therefore, the AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case for a final merits determination.

The Director's decision was withdrawn because the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Petitioner had satisfied a third evidentiary criterion, high salary, in addition to the two criteria (authorship of scholarly articles and leading or critical role) previously acknowledged by the Director. This fulfillment of three criteria overcame the initial basis for denial, necessitating a remand for the Director to conduct a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

The AAO withdrew the Director's decision, finding that the Petitioner sufficiently explained the discrepancy regarding his U.S. work plans and demonstrated prospective benefit to the U.S. The AAO also found that the Petitioner met the 'lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards' criterion by submitting certificates from Ethiopian government ministries for 'excellence' in the construction field, which were deemed nationally recognized. The case was remanded for a final merits determination as to whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim.

The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director's analysis was insufficient. The decision did not adequately explain the reasons for concluding that the Petitioner failed to satisfy five claimed criteria (lesser awards, published materials, original contributions, leading or critical role, and high salary), nor did it discuss the evidence submitted in response to the RFE. The Director's analysis regarding the Petitioner's intent to continue working was also found to be copied verbatim from the RFE, indicating a lack of proper evaluation of the submitted evidence.