How common are remanded EB-1A petitions?

EB-1A petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

How does the emergency vehicle signaling (EVS) industry industry affect EB-1A petition outcomes?

The emergency vehicle signaling (EVS) industry sector has unique considerations for EB-1A petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Electrical Engineer And Entrepreneur

Emergency Vehicle Signaling (EVS) Industry · 2024-02-07

Decision Date

2024-02-07

Location

Texas

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

2 of 3 criteria met

Scholarly Articles (Met)

The Director concluded and the AAO supported that the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in the field.

Leading or Critical Role (Met)

The Petitioner established performance in leading or critical roles for organizations that have a distinguished reputation.

Judging (Not Met)

The Director's negative determination was withdrawn and remanded because it was based on evidence from a prior petition rather than the current record.

High Salary (Not Met)

The evaluation of this criterion was found to be in error as the Director relied on analysis from a previous, different petition.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The case was remanded because the Director's decision was insufficient for review, having copied analysis verbatim from a prior denied petition rather than evaluating the new evidence. Specifically, the Director failed to properly assess the 'judging' and 'high salary' criteria based on the current record. The AAO confirmed the Petitioner met the 'scholarly articles' and 'leading or critical roles' criteria but required a re-evaluation of the others to see if the three-criterion threshold was met.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE response was not properly evaluated because the Director used boilerplate/copied text from a previous case instead of reviewing the Petitioner's specific evidence.

RFE Targets

JudgingHigh Salary

Evidence

Evidence Types

Scholarly Articles

Leading Role

Professional Memberships

Judging Experience

Original Contributions

High Salary

Evidence Submitted

Authorship of scholarly articles
Performance in leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation
Membership in associations
Judging the work of others
Original contributions of major significance
High salary or significantly high remuneration

Similar Cases

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.

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.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Engineering

USCIS EB-1A remanded

2022-10-27

The Petitioner successfully met three criteria: judging (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)), scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)), and original contributions of major significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)). The Director's initial denial was based on the failure to meet three criteria, which was overturned on appeal. The case was remanded for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim.

Scientist

Artificial Intelligence · India

WeGreened EB-1A approved

California 18 days 2025-04-20

The petition was approved based on 1,438 citations, placing the applicant in the top 1% of researchers in her field. She submitted evidence of 13 peer-reviewed publications and 8 preprints, alongside documentation of 20 peer review assignments. Her research funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) further validated the national importance of her work.

View Case

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 Automotive cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-02-07.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded

RFE Issued

Criteria Met 2 / 3

Evidence Types 6

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881

Success Rate 52.9%

Sustained 466

Dismissed 299

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