remanded EB-1A RFE Issued
Engineer
Engineering · 2025-03-24
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 metJudging (Met)
The Director previously determined that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for acting as a judge of the works of others.
Scholarly Articles (Met)
The Director previously determined that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for authoring scholarly articles in the field.
Memberships (Not Met)
The Director initially found this criterion unmet, but the AAO noted the Director failed to review RFE evidence pertaining to this category.
Leading or Critical Role (Not Met)
The Director initially found this criterion unmet, but the AAO noted the Director failed to review RFE evidence pertaining to this category.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The decision was withdrawn and remanded because the Director failed to consider evidence submitted in response to the RFE and misidentified the Petitioner's professional field.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.
Request for Evidence (RFE)
Unsuccessfully AddressedThe Petitioner submitted evidence in response to an RFE to address memberships and leading roles, but the Director's decision ignored this supplemental filing.
RFE Targets
MembershipsLeading or Critical Role
Evidence
Evidence Types
Scholarly Articles
Judging Experience
Professional Memberships
Evidence Submitted
- Judging of the works of others
- Authoring scholarly articles
- Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
- Leading or critical role for a distinguished organization
Similar Cases
Entrepreneur
Automotive
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
Texas 2024-02-07
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.
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.
Mechanical Engineer
Engineering
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-09-05
The AAO affirmed that the petitioner did not meet the 'original contributions of major significance' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)), finding that evidence of published work, citations, and expert testimonials did not sufficiently demonstrate widespread implementation or major impact beyond the petitioner's employers. The AAO also concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, noting insufficient evidence for the notability of the conference where the petitioner judged and a lack of evidence showing widespread application or significant impact of the petitioner's research in mechanical engineering. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision.
Engineer
Engineering · Egypt
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2025-01-23
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only satisfied one criterion (judging) out of the required three. The evidence for memberships was rejected as it described certification rather than membership; original contributions were not supported by independent evidence of industry-wide adoption; and the leading/critical role evidence lacked specific metrics to show importance to the organizations' overall activities.
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: 2025-03-24.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 2 / 3
Evidence Types 3
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