Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Makeup Artist And Beauty Training Manager

Makeup Artist And Beauty Training Manager · 2024-08-06

Decision Date
2024-08-06
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
Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation (Met)

The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence of serving in a qualifying leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.

High salary or other significantly high remuneration (Met)

The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion by providing evidence of commanding a high salary for his services.

Published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Not Met)

The Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion.

Judging the work of others (Not Met)

The Director did not acknowledge the Petitioner's claim or evidence regarding participation as a judge, leading to a remand for re-evaluation.

Display of work in artistic exhibitions or showcases (Not Met)

The Director's decision did not reflect consideration of the Petitioner's claims and evidence, including the RFE response, for this criterion, leading to a remand for re-evaluation.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Director's decision was withdrawn and the matter remanded because the decision did not adequately address the Petitioner's claims and evidence regarding the judging criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)) and failed to consider the Petitioner's RFE response for the exhibition criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). The AAO found the decision insufficient for review, preventing a fair opportunity to contest on appeal.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested evidence related to the criterion for display of work in artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Petitioner submitted a response, but the Director's decision failed to acknowledge or consider this response in the evaluation.

RFE Targets
Display of work in artistic exhibitions or showcases

Evidence

Evidence Types
Published Material
Judging Experience
Exhibitions
Leading Role
High Salary
Evidence Submitted
  • Published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media
  • Judging the work of others in the same or allied field
  • Display of work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases
  • Leading or critical roles for organizations that have a distinguished reputation
  • High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field

Similar Cases

Others

Art and Design · Moldova

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-07-03
The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) or (3). Specifically, the Petitioner failed to satisfy the membership criterion (UNITEM), the judging criterion (lack of specific dates and roles), and the high salary criterion (lack of payroll/tax statements and flawed comparative data). Only one criterion (display) was previously satisfied, falling short of the required three.

Others

Art and Design

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-07-02
The Petitioner satisfied at least three criteria: published material, judging the work of others, and display of work at artistic exhibitions. Specifically, the record included documentation of work displayed at artistic exhibitions at the [redacted] and the [redacted]. Because the initial evidentiary threshold was met, the Director's previous denial was withdrawn to allow for a final merits determination.

Others

Performing Arts

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-09-16
The AAO remanded the case because the Director's final merits determination was incomplete. Specifically, the Director failed to evaluate the acclaim associated with the Petitioner's prizes or awards, original contributions, and high salary or remuneration. Additionally, the Director did not fully consider all evidence for published material, judging experience, and display of work, and misapplied the definition of 'sustained acclaim' for leading/critical roles, particularly regarding a seven-year gap in performance.

Others

Food and Beverage

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
California 2024-08-27
The Director's decision was withdrawn and remanded because it was insufficient for review. The Director failed to acknowledge or discuss evidence and arguments provided in response to an RFE for criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), and (viii). Additionally, the decision contained few specific references to the submitted evidence or the Petitioner's explanations, and improperly dismissed evidence from 'unreliable' sources without sufficient support.

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 Cosmetics cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-08-06.

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 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