Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A

Co-Founder And Chief Executive Officer

Financial Technology · 2025-01-03

Decision Date
2025-01-03
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
Awards (Met)

The Director found this criterion met, and the AAO did not dispute this finding.

Leading or Critical Role (Met)

The Director found this criterion met, and the AAO did not dispute this finding.

Authorship of Scholarly Articles (Met)

Initially found unmet by the Director, the AAO determined this criterion was met through comparable evidence of the Beneficiary presenting work at multiple major trade shows, aligning with USCIS policy for STEM fields in industry.

Memberships (Not Met)

The Director found this criterion not satisfied, and the AAO did not re-evaluate it, stating it was unnecessary for the decision.

Published Material About the Alien (Not Met)

The Director found this criterion not satisfied, and the AAO did not re-evaluate it, stating it was unnecessary for the decision.

Display of Work (Not Met)

The Director found this criterion not satisfied, and the AAO did not re-evaluate it, stating it was unnecessary for the decision.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

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.

Evidence

Evidence Types
Awards
Leading Role
Conference Presentations
Evidence Submitted
  • presentations at multiple major trade shows
  • venture capital funding from multiple prominent organizations

Similar Cases

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Fintech · Ukraine

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-09-24
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.

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.

Financial Manager

Financial Services

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-09-13
The Director erred in determining that the petitioner did not meet the leading or critical role criterion. The AAO found sufficient evidence that the petitioner performed leading or critical roles for distinguished venture capital firms K- and N-, including managing significant funds (1.5 billion yuan and $170 million USD) and founding N- which earned over $26 million in revenue in 2022 and garnered industry awards. With this, the petitioner satisfied three criteria (published material, judging, leading/critical role), necessitating a remand for a final merits review.

Unknown Position

Others

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-09-04
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director incorrectly concluded that the Petitioner did not articulate what evidence was being submitted for consideration under at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the Petitioner's RFE response brief clearly articulated evidence for the first, fifth, and ninth criteria, thus necessitating a new decision by the Director.

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

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2025-01-03.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 3

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299

Related Pages

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