How common are remanded EB-1A petitions?

EB-1A petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

How does the business industry affect EB-1A petition outcomes?

The business sector has unique considerations for EB-1A petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Lead Marketing Specialist

Business · 2024-11-26

Decision Date

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

0 of 3 criteria met

Leading or Critical Role (Not Met)

The Director dismissed evidence for this criterion by categorically stating that self-employed, temporary, or contractual workers cannot meet it, without legal support, which the AAO found inadequate.

Membership in Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements (Not Met)

The Director dismissed a letter from the Eastern European Marketing Association, mischaracterizing it as only discussing committee membership, and stated that evidence did not show associations required outstanding achievements, despite submitted letters, minutes, and biographies addressing this.

Published Material About the Alien in Professional or Major Trade Publications (Not Met)

The Director stated no materials established publication in professional or major trade publications, despite the record including information indicating PR in Russia and Adindex are professional publications. The Director also incorrectly dismissed circulation data by misapplying legal precedent.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The AAO remanded the case because the Director failed to adequately explain reasons for denial, did not fully discuss the contents of submitted documents, and mischaracterized evidence. Specifically, the Director incorrectly dismissed evidence for the lead or critical role criterion, mischaracterized membership evidence from the Eastern European Marketing Association, and incorrectly dismissed published materials by stating they were not professional publications and misapplying legal precedent regarding circulation data.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE questioned the petitioner's eligibility for the lead or critical role criterion based on employment status, mischaracterized evidence for the membership criterion, and dismissed published materials for not being in professional publications and for having 'self-serving' circulation data. The AAO found the RFE did not adequately explain why the evidence was insufficient.

RFE Targets

Leading or Critical RoleMembership in Associations Requiring Outstanding AchievementsPublished Material About the Alien in Professional or Major Trade Publications

Evidence

Evidence Types

Professional Memberships

Published Material

Leading Role

Evidence Submitted

letter from the Eastern European Marketing Association (membership criterion)
letters, meeting minutes, and member biographies (membership criterion)
articles published in PR in Russia and Adindex magazines (published materials criterion)
circulation data for publications

Similar Cases

Marketing Manager

Marketing and Advertising · China

USCIS EB-1A remanded

2024-10-30

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director's decision lacked detailed analysis of the submitted evidence and did not fully explain the reasons for the unfavorable conclusions regarding the claimed criteria. The AAO also noted that the Director failed to identify specific evidence or provide an explanation for the finding of willful misrepresentation, and did not afford the Petitioner an opportunity to rebut this conclusion. Therefore, the AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter for further consideration and a new decision.

Data Analyst

Information Technology

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded

2024-06-11

The matter was remanded because the Director's decision did not fully explain the reasons for denial or consider the evidence submitted for the specific criteria of awards, memberships, and leading roles. The original decision also erroneously discussed factors pertinent to a separate classification (National Interest Waiver) instead of the requested EB-1A classification.

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

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.

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

More remanded cases More Consulting cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-11-26.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded

RFE Issued

Criteria Met 0 / 3

Evidence Types 3

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 919

Success Rate 53.0%

Sustained 487

Dismissed 315

EB-1A Overview All EB-1A Cases EB-1A Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist