Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Entrepreneur

Business · 2024-08-23

Decision Date
2024-08-23
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 met
Participation as a judge of the work of others (Met)

The Director and AAO agreed that the Petitioner met this criterion by participating as a judge of the work of others.

Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)

The Director and AAO agreed that the Petitioner met this criterion by authoring scholarly articles.

Published material about the alien in major media (Met)

The AAO concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion based on press coverage of his corporate work in various Chinese publications, including China Youth Daily, China News Service, and 21st Century Business Herald, and other articles provided in response to an RFE, along with evidence of the publications' major media status.

Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field (Not Met)

The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish this criterion. The AAO reserved discussion on this criterion as it would not affect the outcome of meeting the minimum three criteria.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner only met two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria: judging (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)) and scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)). The AAO, upon de novo review, concluded that the Petitioner also met the criterion for published material about them in major media (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)), overturning the Director's finding on this point. Specifically, the AAO found that press coverage of the Petitioner's corporate work, including articles from China Youth Daily, China News Service, 21st Century Business Herald, China Enterprise News, Xinmin Weekly, The Morning Express, Southern Metropolis Daily, Nan Fang Daily Press, and Technology Entrepreneurship, along with supporting documentation, was sufficient to establish this criterion. Therefore, with three criteria met, the case was remanded for a final merits determination.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Successfully Addressed

The RFE requested further evidence to establish that the published articles were about the Petitioner's work in his field of extraordinary ability and that the publications themselves qualified as professional or major media. The Petitioner responded by providing additional articles and supporting documentation regarding the publications' circulation data and standing.

RFE Targets
Published material about the alien in major media

Evidence

Evidence Types
Media Coverage
Judging Experience
Scholarly Articles
Evidence Submitted
  • participation as a judge of the work of others
  • authorship of scholarly articles
  • 2016 article from China Youth Daily about his 2015 novel
  • 2015 article from China News Service about his 2015 novel
  • 2008 article from the 21st Century Business Herald about the Petitioner's company
  • articles from China Enterprise News about his writing and business ventures
  • articles from Xinmin Weekly about his writing and business ventures
  • articles from The Morning Express about his writing and business ventures
  • articles from Southern Metropolis Daily about his writing and business ventures
  • articles from Nan Fang Daily Press about his writing and business ventures
  • articles from Technology Entrepreneurship about his writing and business ventures
  • Wall Street Journal article about the 21st Century Business Herald

Similar Cases

Entrepreneur

Food and Beverage

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Colorado 2024-08-16
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria. Specifically, USCIS found that the claimed awards were not nationally or internationally recognized, the published materials were not in major media, and the claimed judging experience was merely mentorship or on-the-job training, not actual judging of others' work. No specific metrics like publication or citation counts were provided or met.

Entrepreneur

Financial Services

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2025-01-15
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for criteria (i), (iii), (v), and (vi). Criterion (i) was waived by the petitioner. For criterion (iii), published material, articles were found not to be about the petitioner, were paid advertisements, lacked required author/date information, or were published after the filing date. For criterion (v), original contributions, reference letters lacked objective corroborating evidence, and contributions were not deemed of 'major significance' to the field, only to individual clients or projects. For criterion (vi), scholarly articles, the submitted article was not considered scholarly (lacking original research/experimentation) and the publication 'Science and Life' was not deemed a professional or major trade publication for the petitioner's field due to its broad subject matter and lack of evidence for circulation data.

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.

Lawyer

Legal Services

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2025-02-05
The appeal is dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, publications about her in major media (due to lack of certified translations and independent evidence), original contributions of major significance, a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations, or high remuneration for services (due to insufficient corroborating evidence). The Petitioner also abandoned claims for display of work and commercial successes.

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: 2024-08-23.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
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

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