remanded EB-1A
Producer
Business · 2024-11-26
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 metPublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Met)
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the publications criterion, which the record supports.
Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field (Met)
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the leading role criterion, which the record supports.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, or other outstanding remuneration (Met)
The Petitioner commanded a high salary in comparison to others in her field, with remuneration totaling RMB 1,958,142 in 2022, well above typical wage ranges.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
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.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Media Coverage
Leading Role
High Salary
Evidence Submitted
- published material about her in professional publications or major media
- leading or critical role for establishments with distinguished reputations
- commanding a high salary or other remuneration
- income tax records
Similar Cases
Others
Others
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-10-15
The Director's decision was withdrawn because the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Petitioner had satisfied a third evidentiary criterion, high salary, in addition to the two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.
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Others · China
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-07-18
The Petitioner met three criteria: leading or critical role, published material in major media, and high salary. The high salary criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)) was satisfied after the AAO determined that salary discrepancies were due to translation errors in tax documents. The Director's original decision was withdrawn because it lacked a final merits determination.
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.
Others
Entertainment
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
California and Florida 2024-07-05
The Petitioner only satisfied two of the ten criteria (published material and leading/critical role), failing to meet the minimum requirement of three. Specifically, his reported wages of $130,500 and $75,000 were below the mean for agents and business managers in his geographic areas. Additionally, the record did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim required for the final merits determination.
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: 2024-11-26.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 3
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