Principal Research Engineer And Chief Executive Officer

The decision was withdrawn and remanded because the Director failed to consider evidence submitted in response to the RFE and misidentified the Petitioner's professional field. The AAO determined a de novo review was necessary to ensure all evidence, including that related to engineering, is properly evaluated against the regulatory criteria.

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.

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.

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.