Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Civil Engineer And Construction Manager

Civil Engineer And Construction Manager · 2025-01-27

Decision Date
2025-01-27
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
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Not Met)

The Director did not adequately analyze the evidence submitted for this criterion in response to the RFE, stating 'no evidence' was submitted, which the AAO found inaccurate.

Authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Not Met)

The Director did not adequately analyze the evidence submitted for this criterion in response to the RFE, stating 'no evidence' was submitted, which the AAO found inaccurate.

Performance of a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation (Not Met)

The Director did not adequately analyze the evidence submitted for this criterion in response to the RFE, stating 'no evidence' was submitted, which the AAO found inaccurate.

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

The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's RFE response for this criterion but explained why the evidence did not satisfy it.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director's decision lacked a complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence. The Director failed to explain how the evidence was deficient in meeting motion requirements and did not address arguments in the supporting legal brief. Specifically, the Director inaccurately stated that 'no evidence' was submitted in response to the RFE for criteria (ii), (vi), and (viii), despite the Petitioner providing a 14-page statement addressing these. The Director also did not adequately discuss the evidence submitted in support of the motion itself, thereby precluding a meaningful opportunity to appeal.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested evidence for criteria (ii), (vi), (viii), and (ix). The Petitioner responded with a 14-page statement and four motion exhibits. The Director concluded that 'no evidence' was submitted for criteria (ii), (vi), and (viii), and found the evidence for criterion (ix) insufficient.

RFE Targets
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major mediaAuthorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major mediaPerformance of a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputationOriginal scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field

Evidence

Evidence Submitted
  • Petitioner's 14-page statement in response to RFE
  • Four motion exhibits
  • Supporting legal brief

Similar Cases

Business Manager

Construction · Russia

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
473 days 2024-08-16
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner did not explain how submitted materials related to eligibility criteria and failed to submit a timely RFE response to the correct address with the required cover sheet. The RFE response letters from clients did not address eligibility criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as the Petitioner did not identify any grounds for appeal and the record did not demonstrate eligibility.

Civil Engineer

Engineering

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Texas 2024-11-12
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found that the Petitioner only met one of the ten criteria (judging), falling short of the required three. Specifically, the Petitioner's membership in ASCE did not demonstrate 'outstanding achievements', published material lacked required details and major media status, original contributions were not shown to be of 'major significance' beyond his employers, and his salary was not 'significantly high' compared to others in the field.

Civil Engineer

Engineering · Peru

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-09-10
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner only demonstrated meeting two of the required three criteria (judging and scholarly articles). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reversed the Director's finding on the awards criterion, concluding that the Petitioner did receive a nationally recognized award (the medal from the National Council of the _________ in 2022 for outstanding professional work in engineering in Peru). With three criteria now met (awards, judging, and scholarly articles), the AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case for a final merits determination, as the Director had not reached this stage of evaluation.

Unknown Position

Unknown Industry

USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2025-01-30
The motion to reopen was dismissed due to a lack of new facts or documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the AAO found its reliance on Krasniqi v. Dibbins for merit-based awards was correct, the petitioner's awards were for participation, not excellence. The petitioner also failed to show error in the analysis of the leading or critical role criterion, or the high salary criterion, as no comparative evidence was provided to show the salary was high in relation to others in the field.

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 Construction cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2025-01-27.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 0 / 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