remanded EB-1A
Medical Cosmetologist, Beauty Expert, And Health Services Manager
Medical Cosmetologist, Beauty Expert, And Health Services Manager · Russia · 2024-10-18
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 metParticipation as a judge of the work of others (Met)
The Director determined, and the AAO affirmed, that the Petitioner demonstrated participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field.
Original contributions of major significance (Met)
The Petitioner created a patented methodology for administering full-face Botox, which was described by medical practitioners and advertised by medical spas and clinics, demonstrating original contributions of major significance.
Performance in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations (Met)
The Petitioner held increasingly significant roles as a consultant, adviser, mentor, and trainer for a distinguished Botox/Juvederm manufacturer, trained hundreds of doctors, and was selected as a main speaker and 'face of' a major brand in Russia, significantly contributing to sales and brand advancement.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The Director denied the petition because the petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements of satisfying at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met three criteria: (iv) participation as a judge of the work of others; (v) original contributions of major significance, evidenced by a patented methodology for administering Botox in the Russian Federation, described by medical practitioners and advertised by clinics; and (viii) performance in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations, demonstrated by her long-standing role as a consultant, adviser, mentor, and trainer for a Botox/Juvederm manufacturer, and as a main speaker for a major brand in Russia, significantly contributing to sales and reputation.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Reference Letters Dependent
Judging Experience
Original Contributions
Patents
Leading Role
Evidence Submitted
- Medical education and years of experience
- Managed a medical facility
- Performed medical procedures
- Provided non-surgical, injection-based treatments
- Developed a proprietary technique for administering dermal fillers
- Conducted training programs and master classes
- Participation as a judge of the work of others
- Created a methodology for administering full-face Botox
- Patent granted by the Russian Federation for a method for rejuvenating facial and neck tissues
- Letters from medical practitioners describing and listing benefits of petitioner's methodology
- Sampling of medical spas and clinics featuring and advertising use of petitioner's methodology
- Detailed statement from an executive at a Botox/Juvederm manufacturer attesting to petitioner's critical role in increasing sales by training professionals
- Petitioner's long-standing relationship with a Botox/Juvederm manufacturer, assuming roles as consultant, adviser, mentor, and trainer, and receiving designation as an 'expert'
- Estimated 100 trainings conducted by petitioner since 2022, attended by at least 1000 doctors throughout Russia
- Petitioner served as a leading expert, contributing significantly to company's reputation and sales by training and consulting with hundreds of physicians
- Statement from Branch Director of a company in Russia discussing petitioner's critical role in collaboration
- Petitioner chosen from over 700 doctors to represent and be 'the face of' a brand
- Petitioner selected as the main speaker at a nationwide annual conference on cosmetology and aesthetic medicine
- Petitioner's training course at reputable beauty clinics resulted in increased sales and advancement of a brand in the Russian market
Similar Cases
Surgeon
Healthcare · Kyrgyzstan
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-04-25
The Petitioner did not meet any of the eight claimed criteria; specifically, nominations for awards were not considered 'receipt,' and membership letters for SARSK lacked credibility due to font inconsistencies and conflicting requirements. Evidence for scholarly articles and published material was deficient as it lacked authors, translations, or proof of major media standing. No original contributions of major significance were established, and the claim for commercial success in performing arts was inapplicable to a surgeon.
Makeup Artist
Cosmetics
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-08-06
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.
Massage Therapist
Healthcare
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2025-01-27
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of either a one-time major internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner only satisfied the 'judging the work of others' criterion, while failing to meet 'membership in associations', 'original contributions of major significance' (due to lack of demonstrated impact of his adaptive method blending traditional Thai massage with modern therapeutic procedures), and 'high salary or significantly high remuneration' (due to irrelevant comparative data).
Data Scientist
Artificial Intelligence · India
WeGreened EB-1A rfe approved
Texas 120 days 2025-03-12
The approval was based on meeting three EB-1A criteria: scholarly articles, judging the work of others, and original scientific contributions. The petitioner demonstrated significant influence through over 200 citations and the adoption of his work in over 30 countries.
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
Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-10-18.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 5
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 883
Success Rate 52.8%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 300
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist