remanded EB-1A
Drug Addiction Counselor
Drug Addiction Counselor · 2024-11-21
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
of 3 criteria metWhy This Petition Was Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision to dismiss the motion because the Director failed to provide specific details or explanations for the summary conclusion that the the evidence submitted with the motion did not establish the initial decision was incorrect. This lack of specificity prevented the Petitioner from addressing deficiencies on appeal. The AAO remanded the matter, instructing the Director to issue a new decision addressing the specific claims and arguments in the Petitioner's motion, and to identify and explain any deficiencies if the motion is deemed not to meet the requirements for reopening or reconsideration.
Similar Cases
Others
Others
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2025-03-13
The combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not provide new facts or establish that the previous dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner sent his appeal brief to the wrong location, violating 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2) and Form I-290B instructions. The Petitioner's resubmission of previously provided information did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen.
Others
Others
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-05-21
The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Although the Petitioner provided a copy of a supplemental brief, it was incorrectly mailed to Arizona instead of the AAO, and the Petitioner offered no new facts to overcome the grounds for the original dismissal.
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.
Unknown Position
Unknown Industry
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-12-12
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for extraordinary ability by not meeting the initial evidentiary requirements, specifically lacking evidence of a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten alternative criteria. The AAO dismissed the subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider because the Petitioner did not present new facts or demonstrate that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a crucial supplemental brief was misdirected to the wrong service center.
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: 2024-11-21.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met / 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