Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A

Senior Life Science Product Consultant

Life Science Product Consultant · 2022-11-29

Decision Date
2022-11-29
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 met
Judging the work of others (Met)

The Director determined the Petitioner satisfied this criterion by participating as a judge of the work of others in her field.

Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)

The Director determined the Petitioner satisfied this criterion through her authorship of scholarly articles.

Leading or critical role (Met)

The AAO found the Petitioner performed a leading role for her employer, a distinguished Fortune 500 company, as evidenced by expert letters and product owner documentation.

Membership in associations (Not Met)

The Petitioner asserted this criterion on appeal, but the AAO did not reach a conclusion as the three-criteria threshold was already met via other categories.

Original contributions of major significance (Not Met)

The Petitioner asserted she created two original solutions of major significance, but the AAO did not evaluate this further after finding three other criteria met.

High salary (Not Met)

The Petitioner did not pursue or contest the Director's negative decision regarding this criterion on appeal, and it was deemed waived.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Petitioner satisfied three criteria: judging (iv), scholarly articles (vi), and leading/critical role (viii). Specifically, evidence showed she led the entire product life cycle for an industry-leading digital service provider. Because the initial evidentiary threshold was met, the Director's denial was withdrawn to allow for a final merits evaluation.

Evidence

Evidence Types
Scholarly Articles
Judging Experience
Leading Role
Professional Memberships
Original Contributions
High Salary
Evidence Submitted
  • Authorship of scholarly articles
  • Participation as a judge of the work of others
  • Leading or critical role for a Fortune 500 corporation
  • Product design documentation and licensing contracts listing Petitioner as 'product owner'
  • Industry research group (E-) report ranking employer as an industry leader

Similar Cases

Director

Information Technology

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-07-17
The Petitioner failed the final merits determination because his evidence, including a white paper and '40 Under 40' recognition, did not establish major significance or sustained acclaim. Specific deficiencies included a lack of corroborating evidence for original contributions and unverified salary comparisons from ZipRecruiter.com. While meeting three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading role), the totality of evidence did not show he had risen to the very top of the technology product management field.

Data Scientist

Information Technology

USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-08-20
The appeal was dismissed because, despite the Petitioner satisfying three initial criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading role), the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. The activities cited, such as judging, authoring articles, and holding a leading role, were primarily limited to a short period (2021-2023, mostly 2023) immediately preceding the petition filing in 2023, failing to show a 'career of acclaimed work.' Additionally, memberships in BCS and IEEE were not deemed to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, and the high salary claim lacked comparison to top-level peers with similar experience and responsibilities.

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.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Engineering

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2022-10-27
The Petitioner successfully 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 original contributions of major significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)). The Director's initial denial was based on the failure to meet three criteria, which was overturned on appeal. The case was remanded for a final merits determination to assess sustained national or international acclaim.

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 Biotechnology cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2022-11-29.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 6

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299

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