Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Chief Executive Officer

Financial Technology Company · Ukraine · 2024-09-24

Decision Date
2024-09-24
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

3 of 3 criteria met
Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements (Met)

The Beneficiary's membership in the Forbes Finance Council was deemed to satisfy this criterion, as the organization requires outstanding achievements judged by experts, and a membership fee alone is not inherently disqualifying.

Published material about the individual in professional or major media (Met)

Some of the submitted online articles published between 2017 and 2023 were found to be sufficient to meet the burden of proof for this criterion, despite other submissions being promotional or merely quoting the Beneficiary.

Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments (Met)

The Director's conclusion that the Petitioner met the criterion relating to a leading or critical role was not disturbed by the AAO.

Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (Not Met)

The Beneficiary received an "inaugural" award in 2019, but the Petitioner failed to establish that the award itself was nationally or internationally recognized, relying on self-promotional material and lacking evidence of industry attention beyond the awarding entities.

Original contributions of major significance (Not Met)

While expert letters praised the Beneficiary's savings methodology, they lacked corroborating details of major significance. Endorsements were brief and emphasized potential future impact, and the Petitioner did not show that substantial investments were based on the major significance of contributions rather than profitability.

Authorship of scholarly articles (Not Met)

The Beneficiary's articles on Forbes's website were determined to be informational and aimed at a general audience (e.g., parents, millennials, entrepreneurs) rather than scholarly writings for learned persons with profound knowledge of the financial planning market.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The AAO found the Director erred in evaluating the membership and published material criteria. The Beneficiary's membership in the Forbes Finance Council was deemed to require outstanding achievements, despite a fee, and several online articles were found to be sufficient published material about the Beneficiary. However, the award received was not established as nationally or internationally recognized, original contributions lacked corroborating evidence of major significance, and articles authored by the Beneficiary were deemed informational rather than scholarly.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested further evidence to establish that the award was nationally or internationally recognized and that the beneficiary's original contributions had a significant influence on the field of business at large. The Petitioner responded by reiterating previous claims and asserting that substantial investments in the company served as an endorsement of the business idea's originality and potential.

RFE Targets
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awardsOriginal contributions of major significance

Evidence

Evidence Types
Awards
Media Coverage
Reference Letters Dependent
Professional Memberships
Original Contributions
Scholarly Articles
Commercial Success
Evidence Submitted
  • lIAward for \Financial Technology\ (2019)
  • Membership in Forbes Finance Council (since 2017)
  • Online articles published about the Beneficiary (2017-2023)
  • Letters from experts praising savings methodology (advisor to Petitioner, board member of Petitioner)
  • Service agreements with 7 financial services companies
  • Industry leader endorsements (17 individuals)
  • Over $5 million in capital raised for the company
  • 7 articles written or co-written by the Beneficiary on Forbes's website (2017-2021)

Similar Cases

Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

Financial Services · Canada

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
Ontario 2024-04-11
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three EB-1A criteria. The membership criterion was unmet as no bylaws or governing principles were provided; the published material criterion was unmet because the articles were about the employer's projects; and the judging criterion lacked specific dates and competition titles. Additionally, the original contributions were deemed to have impact only on specific companies rather than the field as a whole.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Fintech

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2025-01-03
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter. The AAO found that the Director erred in disallowing comparable evidence for the 'authorship of scholarly articles' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)). The AAO determined that the Beneficiary's presentations at multiple major trade shows constituted comparable evidence, thereby satisfying this criterion. With this additional criterion met, the Petitioner now satisfies at least three of the ten criteria, allowing the case to proceed to a final merits determination, which the Director had not performed.

Others

Fintech · China

USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-10-17
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate satisfaction of two additional evidentiary criteria required for EB-1A classification. Specifically, the article submitted to China Banking and Insurance News was deemed not scholarly due to lack of research detail, peer review, or citations. For the high salary criterion, inconsistencies in tax records (5,567,813.42 RMB / $782,060 in 2021 and 7,787,602.62 RMB / $1,093,854 in 2022 vs. online records and employer letter) and lack of clarity on whether salary guides included stock compensation led to the finding that high remuneration was not established. The Petitioner only met one criterion (judging), falling short of the three required.

Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

Government

USCIS EB-1A dismissed
Texas 2025-03-07
The appeal was dismissed because the signatures on the appellate forms were not valid handwritten marks and the Petitioner only satisfied one criterion (leading/critical role). Specifically, memberships did not require 'outstanding achievements,' published materials were not 'about' the Petitioner, and salary comparisons were based on the wrong occupation (economist instead of CFO). No specific citation counts or award names were validated as meeting the EB-1A standards.

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 Fintech cases More cases from Ukraine

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-09-24.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 7

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299

Related Pages

EB-1A Overview EB-1A in Ukraine 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