Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Social Media Artist

Social Media Artist · 2024-11-19

Decision Date
2024-11-19
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

1 of 3 criteria met
Published material about the individual and their work (Met)

The Director concluded this criterion was met, citing appearances on Cosmopolitan Latin American and the MTV MIAW Awards.

Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards (Not Met)

The Director concluded this criterion was not met, vaguely referencing 'copies and photos of various awards' and stating they appeared 'local or regional in nature' without specific analysis. The AAO found this determination conclusory and remanded for re-evaluation.

Authorship of scholarly articles (Not Met)

The Director did not consider the petitioner's alternative request to consider comparable evidence under this criterion. The AAO remanded for the Director to determine if the criterion readily applies and, if not, if the evidence is truly comparable.

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

The Director's decision did not reflect consideration of the petitioner's arguments for eligibility based on displays at 'VidCon US' and 'VidCon Mexico'. The AAO remanded for examination of these claims.

Leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations (Not Met)

The Director's decision did not specifically acknowledge the petitioner's claim of critical roles with I I I I affiliated organizations and I I, only determining a leading role was not played with I I. The AAO remanded for re-examination of all submitted evidence, including specific letters of recommendation.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director's denial was conclusory and did not provide a complete analysis or full explanation of the reasons for denial. Specifically, the Director failed to adequately address specific awards claimed, did not consider the petitioner's arguments for comparable evidence under the scholarly articles criterion, overlooked claims and evidence for the display criterion (VidCon US and Mexico), and did not fully examine evidence for the leading/critical role criterion, including specific letters of recommendation.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested further evidence or clarification on several criteria. The petitioner responded by making arguments for eligibility under the scholarly articles criterion based on comparable evidence, and for the display criterion based on work shown at 'VidCon US' and 'VidCon Mexico'. The Director's subsequent decision failed to adequately address these responses.

RFE Targets
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awardsAuthorship of scholarly articlesDisplay of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcasesLeading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations

Evidence

Evidence Types
Awards
Media Coverage
Reference Letters Dependent
Scholarly Articles
Exhibitions
Leading Role
Evidence Submitted
  • Published material about the individual and their work (Cosmopolitan Latin American, MTV MIAW Awards)
  • Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
  • Authorship of scholarly articles (or comparable evidence)
  • Display of the individual's work at artistic exhibitions or showcases (VidCon US, VidCon Mexico)
  • Leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations (I I I I affiliated organizations, I I)

Similar Cases

Others

Art and Design · Brazil

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-11-26
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of demonstrating a one-time achievement or meeting at least three of the ten criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, awards were not nationally/internationally recognized, memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirements, published material was not from major media, original contributions lacked major significance, displays were not artistic exhibitions of work product, a lead role was not specified, and commercial success lacked documentation of actual revenues despite high follower/view counts.

Others

Art and Design

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-12-10
The motion to reopen was dismissed for failing to state new facts and submit documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate an error in law or policy regarding the scholarly articles criterion (which was not claimed in the initial petition or RFE response) and the awards criterion (due to insufficient documentation demonstrating national or international recognition for excellence in the field, including details on selection process, number of entrants, and external recognition of the award itself).

Social Media Manager

Marketing and Advertising

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-11-26
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the membership in associations criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)) because her 'Platinum Creator' status was based on a points system and subjective factors like 'mystery, swagger, and confidence,' not outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. For the commercial successes criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x)), the Petitioner's $3,257,612 profit from her LLC was deemed remuneration for her work as a social media influencer, not evidence of high sales or receipts comparable to commercial success in the performing arts. The AAO also noted that prior O-1 nonimmigrant status does not guarantee approval for an I-140 petition.

Writer

Media · Venezuela

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-10-04
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.

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 Art and Design cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-11-19.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 1 / 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