remanded EB-1A
Civil Engineer
Civil Engineer · Peru · 2024-09-10
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 metParticipation as a judge of the work of others (Met)
The Director determined, and the AAO agreed, that the Petitioner satisfied the criterion for participating as a judge of the work of others in the field.
Authorship of scholarly articles in major trade publications (Met)
The Director determined, and the AAO agreed, that the Petitioner satisfied the criterion for writing scholarly articles published in major trade publications.
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (Met)
The Director initially found this criterion unmet, but the AAO reversed, concluding that the Petitioner met it by receiving a national medal from the National Council of the _________ in Peru in 2022 for outstanding professional work in engineering.
Original scientific or scholarly contributions of major significance (Not Met)
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate meeting this criterion. The AAO did not re-evaluate this criterion, stating it was unnecessary to discuss further claims after three criteria were met.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
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.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Awards
Judging Experience
Scholarly Articles
Evidence Submitted
- award certificate for the medal from the National Council of the _________ (2022)
- photograph of the medal
- May 2022 letter from the 'National Dean' representing the National Council of the _________ confirming receipt of the national award
- June 2022 resolution from the National Council of the _________ stating its responsibility to establish honorary distinctions for collegiate engineers
- certified translations of evaluation criteria for the award
- evidence of participation as a judge of the work of others in the field
- evidence of scholarly articles published in major trade publications
Similar Cases
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
Construction
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2025-01-27
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.
Civil Engineer
Engineering · Iraq
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-10-04
The appeal is dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide initial evidence of a one-time achievement or meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his association memberships required outstanding achievements, that his original contributions (including published articles and citations) were of major significance to the field of water resources engineering, or that his roles were leading/critical for organizations with distinguished reputations. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim, concluding the Petitioner is not among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
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.
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: 2024-09-10.
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