remanded EB-1A
Delivery Practice Manager
Data Analytics · 2024-09-19
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 this criterion was met, and the record supports this determination, which the AAO affirmed.
Performance in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations (Met)
The AAO found the Petitioner met this criterion, citing an award for leadership, management of a $50 million portfolio, leadership on a $97 million online learning project, technical leadership for data cloud migration, and leading critical data migration resulting in cost savings and efficiency.
Command of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration (Met)
The AAO concluded the Petitioner met this criterion, noting 2022 earnings of approximately $254,000, restricted stock units (valued at $33,152 in 2021 and $75,599 in 2023), and O*NET wage information, demonstrating remuneration significantly higher than others in the field.
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (Not Met)
The Director concluded this criterion was not met, and the Petitioner did not dispute this on appeal, thus waiving the issue.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The Director initially found only one criterion met (judging). The AAO found the Petitioner met the judging criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)). For the leading or critical role criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)), the AAO found evidence of leadership on a sales team offering effort, managing a $50 million portfolio, leading a $97 million online learning expansion project, serving as a technical leader for data movement to the cloud, and leading critical data migration with significant cost savings. For the high salary criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)), the AAO noted the Petitioner's 2022 earnings of approximately $254,000, restricted stock units valued at $33,152 (2021) and $75,599 (2023), and O*NET wage information, which demonstrated a significantly high remuneration compared to others in the field.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Awards
Media Coverage
Reference Letters Dependent
Judging Experience
Leading Role
High Salary
Evidence Submitted
- documentation of an award for leadership on a sales team offering effort
- documentation describing critical role in managing a portfolio of $50 million for a division delivering data analytics solutions
- evidence concerning various projects, including media coverage
- detailed letters of support from superiors and colleagues discussing leading and critical roles
- led a team on a ninety-seven-million-dollar project to expand online learning programs
- served as technical leader for a project involving the movement of data to the cloud
- led the migration process of critical data and applications to a cloud-based platform
- financial documents showing earnings of approximately $254,000 in 2022
- webpages showing salaries for data practice managers
- documentation showing salary ranges for other big data analysts (IBM, Apple)
- receipt of restricted stock units (shares in 2021 valued at $33,152, stock in 2023 valued at $75,599)
- wage information from O*NET
Similar Cases
Data Scientist
Information Technology
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2025-01-29
The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Although three criteria were met (judging, leading/critical role, scholarly articles), the evidence for these achievements (judging activities, articles, and senior/fellow memberships in professional associations) was predominantly from 2023. The AAO found insufficient evidence that the Petitioner's contributions to their employer since 2017 garnered external recognition or that their selection as a judge for various competitions was based on sustained acclaim. New evidence, including career progression letters and online comments, was deemed insufficient to establish sustained acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.
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.
Operations Manager
E-commerce
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
New Jersey 2024-06-26
The Petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion because the claimed award was internal to his employer and lacked national or international recognition. The scholarly articles criterion was not met as the publications (e.g., DC Velocity, Logistics Management) were not proven to be major media or professional trade publications with significant circulation. The high salary claim was rejected because the Petitioner's salary of $182,000 fell below the 67th percentile for his occupation in New Jersey, and his original contributions were found to be significant only to his employer rather than the field as a whole.
Project Manager
Information Technology
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-10-24
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Although she published two papers (cited 47 times) and filed a patent application, the record lacked evidence differentiating her publication rate from others at the top of the field or showing widespread acclaim for her leading roles. Her high salary was noted but not sufficiently compared to the upper echelon of the field to indicate top-tier status. Media articles were deemed non-qualifying or insufficient to show acclaim, and expert letters, while supportive, lacked corroborating evidence of widespread recognition.
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: 2024-09-19.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 6
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 919
Success Rate 53.0%
Sustained 487
Dismissed 315
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist