remanded EB-1A
Engineering, Data Science, Internal Medicine, And Therapy Intervention Experts In Biomedical Engineering
Biomedical Engineering · 2023-02-01
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
5 of 3 criteria metPublished Material (Met)
The Director determined the Petitioner met the criteria for published material about his work in professional or major trade publications.
Judging (Met)
The Petitioner provided evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field.
Scholarly Articles (Met)
The Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Leading or Critical Role (Met)
The Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
High Salary (Met)
The Petitioner commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The matter was remanded because the Director failed to provide a proper final merits determination by ignoring evidence that the Petitioner's citation statistics placed him in the top 1% of authors globally. The Director also failed to explain why certain researchers were used as comparisons or to discuss specific deficiencies in the documentation. The AAO determined the Director did not adequately address the totality of the evidence as required by the Kazarian framework.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Scholarly Articles
Patents
Citations
Published Material
Judging Experience
Leading Role
High Salary
Evidence Submitted
- Four patents related to artificial pancreas technology
- Four journal articles
- Citation statistics from Microsoft Academic (top 1% of 34 million authors)
- Published papers ranking from Clarivate Analytics
- Evidence of judging the work of others
- Evidence of leading or critical roles
- Evidence of commanding a high salary
Similar Cases
Research Scientist
Biotechnology
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Missouri 2024-07-01
The Petitioner failed to show that his peer review work (2020-2022) or his publication and citation record set him apart from others in the field. The evidence did not establish the Petitioner as being in the upper echelon of the field despite meeting the minimum three-criteria threshold. Specific metrics for citations or publication counts were not detailed in the appellate dismissal.
Engineer
Engineering
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2025-03-24
The decision was withdrawn and remanded because the Director failed to consider evidence submitted in response to the RFE and misidentified the Petitioner's professional field. The AAO determined a de novo review was necessary to ensure all evidence, including that related to engineering, is properly evaluated against the regulatory criteria.
Research Scientist
Biotechnology · Armenia
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
United States 2025-02-03
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a one-time internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the 10 EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the AAO found that a research grant was not awarded to the Petitioner personally, and a patent from Armenia did not qualify as an award for excellence (criterion i). Memberships were deemed employment-based or lacked evidence of requiring outstanding achievements (criterion ii). Published material only cited the Petitioner's work, rather than being 'about' her, and lacked substantial discussion (criterion iii). The patent and 40+ citations were not shown to be of 'major significance' due to lack of commercialization evidence, contextual comparison, or demonstration of actual impact since 2014 (criterion v). Finally, the Petitioner's various roles were not established as 'leading or critical' for organizations with a 'distinguished reputation' (criterion viii).
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.
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: 2023-02-01.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 5 / 3
Evidence Types 7
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 919
Success Rate 53.0%
Sustained 487
Dismissed 315
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist