How common are remanded EB-1A petitions?

EB-1A petition outcomes vary based on the strength of evidence, the specific criteria addressed, and the adjudicating officer. Each case is evaluated individually based on its own merits and documentation.

How does the pharmaceutical industry industry affect EB-1A petition outcomes?

The pharmaceutical industry sector has unique considerations for EB-1A petitions. USCIS evaluates whether the petitioner's qualifications and contributions align with the specific requirements of the visa category. Industry context matters for demonstrating the significance and impact of the petitioner's work.

remanded EB-1A

Data Center/Network Engineer

Pharmaceutical Industry · India · 2024-05-10

Decision Date

2024-05-10

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

Scholarly Articles (Met)

The Director found the Petitioner met this criterion through authorship of scholarly articles in his field.

Critical Role (Met)

The Director found the Petitioner performed in a critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation.

High Salary (Met)

The AAO found the Petitioner's prospective salary of $150,904 placed him in the top 10% of earners for his occupation and location.

Original Contributions (Partially Met)

The AAO declined to evaluate this criterion as the Petitioner already met the required three criteria for a remand.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Petitioner satisfied three criteria: scholarly articles, critical role, and high salary ($150,904). The Director's initial denial was withdrawn because the Petitioner successfully demonstrated that his salary was in the 90th percentile for his geographic area and occupation. The AAO did not reach a conclusion on original contributions as the three-criteria threshold was already met.

Evidence

Evidence Types

Peer Reviewed Publications

High Salary

Original Contributions

Leading Role

Evidence Submitted

Authorship of scholarly articles in the field
Performance in a critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation
Commandment of a high salary ($150,904) relative to others in the field
Lead author on a paper proposing AI and watermarking for medical data security

Similar Cases

Network Engineer

Pharmaceuticals

USCIS EB-1A dismissed

2024-05-10

The appeal was dismissed as moot because it raised the same issues as a first appeal that was already being processed. The Director originally denied the petition because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria.

Others

Information Technology · Kazakhstan

USCIS EB-1A remanded

2024-08-28

The Petitioner met the published material criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)) through interviews in Forbes Kazakhstan and Tech Times, and the scholarly articles criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)) with articles in Habr.com and Kommersant written for learned persons. Combined with the artistic exhibitions criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)), the Petitioner satisfied the minimum of three criteria. The matter was remanded to evaluate if the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the top of the field.

Data Scientist

Information Technology

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed

United States 2024-06-05

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum of three regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO withdrew the scholarly articles criterion due to the use of unreliable website traffic data from SiteWorth Traffic, which relied on defunct Alexa statistics. Furthermore, the final merits determination found no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or a career of acclaimed work.

Biomedical Engineer

Biotechnology

USCIS EB-1A remanded

2023-02-01

The matter was remanded because the Director failed to provide a proper final merits determination by ignoring evidence that the Petitioner's citation statistics placed him in the top 1% of authors globally. The Director also failed to explain why certain researchers were used as comparisons or to discuss specific deficiencies in the documentation. The AAO determined the Director did not adequately address the totality of the evidence as required by the Kazarian framework.

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 Pharmaceuticals cases More cases from India

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-05-10.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded

Criteria Met 3 / 3

Evidence Types 4

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881

Success Rate 52.9%

Sustained 466

Dismissed 299

EB-1A Overview EB-1A in India 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