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 forensic investigations, fraud prevention and information security industry affect EB-1A petition outcomes?

The forensic investigations, fraud prevention and information security 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

Business Executive

Forensic Investigations, Fraud Prevention And Information Security · 2024-06-07

Decision Date

2024-06-07

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

Judging the work of others (Met)

The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria related to judging the work of others in the same field.

Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)

The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria related to authorship of scholarly articles.

Leading or critical role (Met)

The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria related to performance in a leading or critical role with organizations that have a distinguished reputation.

Lesser nationally recognized awards (Not Met)

The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish receipt of lesser nationally recognized awards or prizes.

Membership in associations (Not Met)

The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.

Original contributions of major significance (Not Met)

The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish original contributions of major significance in his field.

High salary or remuneration (Not Met)

The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish receipt of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The case was remanded because the Director's final merits analysis was insufficient and failed to address the evidence in its totality. Specifically, the Director did not adequately evaluate the Petitioner's awards, professional memberships, and contributions to the field when determining if he had sustained national or international acclaim.

Evidence

Evidence Types

Judging Experience

Scholarly Articles

Leading Role

Awards

Professional Memberships

Original Contributions

Media Coverage

Reference Letters Dependent

Evidence Submitted

Judging the work of others
Authorship of scholarly articles
Leading or critical role with organizations of distinguished reputation
Professional memberships
Reference letters
Evidence of original contributions
Media attention related to an award
Role as founder of a successful company

Similar Cases

Education Administrator

Education

USCIS EB-1A remanded

2024-05-02

The Petitioner 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 leading or critical role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)). Specifically, his roles as Acting President and Vice President for Academic Affairs at G-U-S-T- were deemed leading or critical for an organization with a distinguished reputation.

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.

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.

Project Manager

Engineering · Jordan

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed

2024-07-10

The Petitioner failed to meet any of the evaluated EB-1A criteria. The awards were internal employer recognitions, memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts, and there was no evidence of published material about the Petitioner or proof that his original contributions were of major significance in the field.

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 Information Technology cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-06-07.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded

Criteria Met 3 / 3

Evidence Types 8

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