remanded EB-1A
Human Rights Policy Officer
Human Rights And Technology · Uruguay · 2024-02-08
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 metAuthorship of scholarly articles (Met)
The Director previously determined this criterion was met, and the record supports this finding.
Leading or critical roles (Met)
The Petitioner performed leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation, including co-founding an NGO.
Judging the work of others (Met)
The Petitioner served as a juror for a regional hackathon and a reviewer for a national transparency award in Uruguay.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The Director's initial denial was withdrawn because the Petitioner successfully met the required three criteria (scholarly articles, leading roles, and judging). Specifically, the AAO found the Director applied 'novel substantive requirements' to the judging criterion that were not in the regulations. The case was remanded because the Director had not yet performed the second-step final merits determination required by Kazarian.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Scholarly Articles
Judging Experience
Leading Role
Evidence Submitted
- Authorship of scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi))
- Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
- Participation as a juror for a regional hackathon (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv))
- Reviewer for a national transparency award in Uruguay (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv))
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.
Others
Others
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-05-15
The Petitioner satisfied at least three regulatory criteria: published material, leading or critical role, and scholarly articles. The AAO found the Petitioner's documentation of article authorship met the scholarly articles criterion and his detailed plans satisfied the requirement to continue work in his area of expertise. The case was remanded for a final merits determination.
Unknown Position
Unknown Industry · Russia
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-10-21
The Director's decision was withdrawn because the AAO found that the Petitioner met the criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)), in addition to the two criteria (scholarly articles and display of work) previously acknowledged by the Director. This brings the total met criteria to three, satisfying the initial evidence requirement. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim and status at the top of the field.
Others
Others
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-10-01
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting three initial criteria. Evidence of published material about the Petitioner was limited to 2023-2024, failing to show sustained acclaim over a long period. A single article published in 1990 lacked evidence of citations or sustained acclaim. A leading or critical role in 2014 also lacked evidence of sustained acclaim. Contributions to employers were noted, but major significance to the broader field of Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production was not established. Furthermore, the record lacked comparative salary data to prove a high salary in relation to others in the field, which would indicate being at the very top.
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: 2024-02-08.
Browse all casesAt 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
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist