Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Business-Owner And Inventor, Founder And Manager Of A Company

Heavy Industrial Technology, Enterprise Management And Public Emergency Management Industries · China · 2024-11-18

Decision Date
2024-11-18
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

0 of 3 criteria met
Awards and Recognition (Not Met)

The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish this criterion, stating a lack of media coverage to prove national/international recognition, and dismissing evidence as 'unreliable sources.' The AAO found this analysis incomplete, noting the Director did not address evidence of national recognition within specialized industries.

Published Material About the Alien (Not Met)

The Director asserted that media interviews did not constitute professional or major media due to self-publication platforms. The AAO found this incomplete, as the Director failed to address RFE responses clarifying website operations and an article from 'China Construction News' cited by Reuters.

Leading or Critical Role (Not Met)

The Director did not specifically address evidence of the Petitioner's company consistently working with public entities, including government institutions and airports, securing contracts for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games, winning industry awards, and achieving government standards for R&D centers. The AAO found this a general assertion concerning 'unreliable internet sources' without specific analysis.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The AAO remanded the case because the Director failed to provide a complete analysis and full explanation for denying the petition. Specifically, the Director did not adequately evaluate evidence for awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)), media coverage (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)), and the Petitioner's leading role/original contributions (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)). The Director also improperly dismissed properly certified English translations, which was a procedural error.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested clarification on the operation of some media websites and proper certification of English translations. The petitioner responded by submitting documentation from the International Communications Consultancy Organisation and an updated affidavit certifying translations.

RFE Targets
Published Material About the Alien

Evidence

Evidence Types
Patents
Awards
Media Coverage
Reference Letters Dependent
Original Contributions
Leading Role
Government Alignment
Evidence Submitted
  • patented technology to operate snow-removal vehicles by wireless remote-control
  • documentation for awards won
  • news articles regarding awards
  • information from awarding organizations and government websites regarding awards
  • letters from professionals in the Petitioner's field regarding awards
  • interviews by several media outlets about business
  • documentation clarifying operation of websites for media coverage
  • article from China Construction News discussing company's pandemic response
  • documentation showing use of China Construction News article as source by Reuters
  • news articles regarding company's work with public entities
  • letters from professionals in the industry regarding company's work
  • copies of financial information and contracts showing work with public entities
  • documentation of company's contract for 2022 Winter Olympic Games
  • documentation of company winning numerous industry awards
  • documentation of company achieving government standards (academician workstation, provincial-level technical center, enterprise design center)
  • documentation from government source citing company among recognized brand names in China

Similar Cases

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.

Engineer

Information Technology

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-08-15
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director's denial lacked sufficient analysis and discussion of the evidence regarding the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The AAO noted that the Director's conclusory statements did not provide a reasoned consideration of the petition, failing to adequately explain why the Petitioner's evidence was deficient to support his claim of extraordinary ability, despite finding he met four criteria.

Entrepreneur

Consulting

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-08-23
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner only met two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria: judging (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)) and scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)). The AAO, upon de novo review, concluded that the Petitioner also met the criterion for published material about them in major media (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)), overturning the Director's finding on this point. Specifically, the AAO found that press coverage of the Petitioner's corporate work, including articles from China Youth Daily, China News Service, 21st Century Business Herald, China Enterprise News, Xinmin Weekly, The Morning Express, Southern Metropolis Daily, Nan Fang Daily Press, and Technology Entrepreneurship, along with supporting documentation, was sufficient to establish this criterion. Therefore, with three criteria met, the case was remanded for a final merits determination.

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.

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 Industrial Automation cases More cases from China

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-11-18.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 0 / 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 China 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