Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Journalist

Journalist · Venezuela · 2024-10-04

Decision Date
2024-10-04
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

2 of 3 criteria met
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Met)

The Director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion by providing several articles.

Participation as a judge of the work of others (Met)

The Director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion based on two instances of judging.

Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (Not Met)

The Director initially found this criterion unmet. The AAO remanded for re-evaluation of additional evidence submitted in response to an RFE regarding an 'International Award'.

Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance (Not Met)

The Director initially found this criterion unmet. The AAO remanded for re-evaluation of additional claims and evidence regarding the petitioner's launch of a digital lifestyle and women's magazine.

Display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases (Not Met)

The Director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion, as her work displayed at live journalism events and podcasts was not 'artistic' in nature as required by agency policy.

Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation (Not Met)

The Director initially found this criterion unmet, stating the petitioner's role as editorial manager for a magazine was not shown to be leading or critical, and the magazine itself lacked a distinguished reputation. The AAO remanded for re-evaluation of evidence regarding the magazine's reputation and the petitioner's role.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Director denied the petition because the petitioner did not establish a major, internationally recognized award and failed to meet three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO remanded the case because the Director's decision did not address all additional claims and evidence submitted in response to the RFE regarding awards, original contributions, and the leading/critical role criterion, and therefore an incomplete analysis was performed.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested additional evidence and clarification regarding the petitioner's claimed awards, original contributions of major significance, and her performance in a leading or critical role. The petitioner provided additional evidence and claims, but the Director's decision failed to fully evaluate this response.

RFE Targets
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awardsOriginal scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significancePerformance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation

Evidence

Evidence Types
Awards
Media Coverage
Judging Experience
Original Contributions
Leading Role
Evidence Submitted
  • Published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
  • Participation as a judge of the work of others
  • Launched the digital version of a lifestyle and women's magazine
  • Service as editorial manager for a lifestyle and women's magazine

Similar Cases

Others

Broadcasting

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2025-03-18
The Director's decision was withdrawn because it improperly evaluated whether the evidence established 'sustained national or international acclaim' within the individual criteria analysis. Under the Kazarian framework, this evaluation belongs in the final merits determination, not the initial counting of criteria. The matter is remanded for a proper de novo review of the four claimed criteria: awards, published material, judging, and high salary.

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.

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.

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.

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 Media cases More cases from Venezuela

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-10-04.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 2 / 3
Evidence Types 5

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 Venezuela 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