Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Co-Founder And Head Of Engineering

Information Technology Development Firm, Specializing In Strategic Management And Development Of Cloud Networks, Distributed Computing Strategies, Data Analytics, And Artificial Intelligence (AI) Business Intelligence Technologies · 2024-08-15

Decision Date
2024-08-15
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

4 of 3 criteria met
Participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field (Met)

The Director concluded the Petitioner met the plain language requirements for this criterion.

Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Met)

The Director concluded the Petitioner met the plain language requirements for this criterion.

Performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation (Met)

The Director concluded the Petitioner met the plain language requirements for this criterion.

Commanded a high salary or other significant high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field (Met)

The Director concluded the Petitioner met the plain language requirements for this criterion.

Published material about the individual in professional or major media (Not Met)

The Director concluded this criterion was not met, a finding that was not explicitly overturned but was part of the overall insufficient analysis.

Original contributions of major significance in the field (Not Met)

The Director concluded this criterion was not met, a finding that was not explicitly overturned but was part of the overall insufficient analysis.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

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.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested further evidence regarding the Petitioner's extraordinary ability. In response, the Petitioner provided detailed exhibit listings and explanations of his significant managerial accomplishments and technical innovations, including his role as co-founder and head of engineering at N- (attracting $17.5M in funding), founding engineer at T- (inventor on multiple patents), and software engineer at G- (contributing to QUIC protocol).

RFE Targets
Published material about the individual in professional or major mediaOriginal contributions of major significance in the field

Evidence

Evidence Types
Peer Reviewed Publications
Patents
Media Coverage
Reference Letters Dependent
Original Contributions
High Salary
Judging Experience
Grants
Commercial Success
Evidence Submitted
  • Published material about the individual in professional or major media
  • Participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field
  • Original contributions of major significance in the field
  • Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media
  • Performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation
  • Commanded a high salary or other significant high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field
  • Co-founder & head of engineering at N-, a company that has attracted over $17.5 million in funding and revolutionized product analytics with its proprietary AI-enhanced business intelligence platform
  • Founding engineer at T-, where he helped build the company's technological platform and is listed as an inventor on multiple patents
  • Software engineer for G- on its front end (GFE) team, contributing to the initial implementation of G-'s QUIC protocol, which laid the groundwork for http3
  • Letters praising work from co-workers or clients

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.

Entrepreneur

Industrial Automation · China

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-11-18
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.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Fintech

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2025-01-03
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.

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 Information Technology cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-08-15.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 4 / 3
Evidence Types 9

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 919
Success Rate 53.0%
Sustained 487
Dismissed 315

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