remanded EB-1A
Goalkeeper Director And Coach
Athletics · 2024-12-12
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
0 of 3 criteria metPublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. (Not Met)
The Director concluded the evidence was not probative, citing illegible URLs and lack of authors, and did not fully review the evidence. The AAO found this a 'blanket rejection' without sufficient explanation.
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of endeavor for which classification is sought. (Not Met)
The Director summarily concluded the evidence was insufficient, vaguely stating that 'simply performing one's job-related duties demonstrates competency.' The AAO found the Director's decision lacked specificity in addressing the submitted evidence.
Evidence that the alien has performed a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. (Not Met)
The Director misapplied the law by requiring a leading or critical role for an 'entire organization' and failed to adequately consider the eleven letters and nine exhibits submitted, providing only a single sentence summary of their content.
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. (Not Met)
The Director erroneously discounted the Petitioner's offer of employment, stating it was 'not evidence of wages earned.' The AAO clarified that a credible job offer showing prospective wages may establish this criterion, contradicting the Director's interpretation.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The AAO remanded the case because the Director's decision lacked sufficient explanation for denying the petition, failing to adequately address or analyze the evidence submitted for four specific EB-1A criteria. The Director improperly disregarded articles for lack of legible URLs or author names, summarily dismissed judging evidence without specificity, misapplied the law regarding 'leading or critical role' by requiring an 'entire organization' role, and erroneously discounted a job offer as evidence for 'high salary' by requiring actual wages earned.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Published Material
Judging Experience
Reference Letters Dependent
High Salary
Evidence Submitted
- articles and evidence regarding circulation statistics for publications
- certificate from the City of I stating service as a judge for four years on a panel of seven professionals
- letter from the Town Hall of I attesting to judging role and rules regarding jury selection
- eleven letters and nine supporting exhibits regarding leading or critical role
- offer of employment for high salary
Similar Cases
Entrepreneur
Information Technology
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-12-26
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.
Others
Others
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-10-01
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 his field, despite meeting three initial criteria. Evidence of published material about the Petitioner was limited to 2023-2024, failing to show sustained acclaim over a long period. A single article published in 1990 lacked evidence of citations or sustained acclaim. A leading or critical role in 2014 also lacked evidence of sustained acclaim. Contributions to employers were noted, but major significance to the broader field of Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production was not established. Furthermore, the record lacked comparative salary data to prove a high salary in relation to others in the field, which would indicate being at the very top.
Athlete
Sports · Kyrgyzstan
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-08-02
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability by not meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the judging criterion was met, citing insufficient evidence regarding the nature and level of judging activities. The published material criterion was also not met due to outdated viewership statistics for the media outlet and the author not being identified. The awards criterion was not addressed as it would not change the outcome, and the membership criterion was met but insufficient on its own.
Others
Art and Design · Moldova
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-07-03
The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) or (3). Specifically, the Petitioner failed to satisfy the membership criterion (UNITEM), the judging criterion (lack of specific dates and roles), and the high salary criterion (lack of payroll/tax statements and flawed comparative data). Only one criterion (display) was previously satisfied, falling short of the required three.
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: 2024-12-12.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 0 / 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