remanded EB-1A
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Artificial Intelligence (Al)/Machine Learning Field · Chile · 2024-12-18
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 metParticipation as a judge of the work of others (Met)
The Director determined, and the record supports, that the Petitioner submitted evidence of her participation as a judge of others' work in her field.
Authorship of scholarly articles in the field (Met)
The Director determined, and the record supports, that the Petitioner submitted evidence of her authorship of scholarly articles in the field.
Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field (Met)
The Petitioner submitted evidence of original contributions of major significance, including software for predicting polymer properties and pedestrian flow models, supported by detailed expert letters.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision because the Petitioner met at least three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance), which was sufficient for a final merits determination. However, the petition was remanded because the Petitioner did not establish her intent to continue working in her field in the United States, as required by Section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, an issue not addressed by the Director.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Judging Experience
Scholarly Articles
Original Contributions
Reference Letters Independent
Evidence Submitted
- participation as a judge of others' work in her field
- authorship of scholarly articles in the field
- development of software that predicts the properties of polymers
- creation of software models regarding pedestrian flow characteristics
Similar Cases
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Artificial Intelligence
USCIS EB-1A remanded
Hong Kong 2024-04-30
The AAO found that the Petitioner met three criteria: leading/critical role, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. The Director's initial denial was withdrawn because the Director overlooked evidence of published articles and mischaracterized the significance of the Petitioner's patented technologies. The case was remanded for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Engineering
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2022-10-27
The Petitioner successfully 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 original contributions of major significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)). The Director's initial denial was based on the failure to meet three criteria, which was overturned on appeal. The case was remanded for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Consulting · Russia
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-08-27
The Director's decision was withdrawn and the case remanded because the AAO found the Petitioner met three of the ten EB-1A criteria, specifically: authorship of scholarly articles, participation as a judge of others' work in international law (an allied field to new market business strategy), and commanding a high salary relative to others in her field. The Director had initially only found one criterion met. The AAO accepted new evidence on appeal for the high salary criterion, which showed her 2023 salary of $284,700 exceeded the average and high salaries for business intelligence analysts.
Research Scientist
Artificial Intelligence
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-12-23
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, memberships in associations (AAAI, IAENG, IEEE Computer Society, ISAC) did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts, and some memberships were still processing or lacked supporting documentation. Original contributions lacked major significance, as support letters were conclusory and citation statistics did not demonstrate widespread influence or heavy reliance by other researchers. The Petitioner's leading/critical role as Director of ICT and AI researcher was not sufficiently proven with organizational charts or evidence of the organizations' distinguished reputations. Subsequent citations post-filing were not considered as eligibility must be met at the time of filing.
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: 2024-12-18.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 4
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