remanded EB-1A
Footwear Development Manager
Sporting Goods Conglomerate · New Zealand · 2025-01-23
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 metOriginal contributions of major significance in the field (Met)
The Director's findings, supported by the record, indicate that the Beneficiary made original contributions of major significance in his field.
Authorship of scholarly articles in the field (Met)
The Director's findings, supported by the record, indicate that the Beneficiary authored scholarly articles in his field.
Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations (Met)
The Director's findings, supported by the record, indicate that the Beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) remanded the case because the Director of the Nebraska Service Center did not consider the entire record when making a final merits determination. The Director's decision only discussed one piece of evidence (a scholarly paper presentation) and failed to address highly probative evidence such as the Beneficiary's five U.S. patents, product designs, and business contributions. The AAO found that the Director misapplied USCIS policy by not considering all evidence in the totality, thus requiring a new determination.
Evidence
Evidence Types
Original Contributions
Scholarly Articles
Leading Role
Patents
Conference Presentations
Evidence Submitted
- Original contributions of major significance in his field
- Authorship of scholarly articles in his field
- Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations
- Five U.S. patents
- Product designs
- Business contributions to the Petitioner
- Presentation of a scholarly paper at an international conference in 2015
Similar Cases
Unknown Position
Others
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-09-04
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director incorrectly concluded that the Petitioner did not articulate what evidence was being submitted for consideration under at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the Petitioner's RFE response brief clearly articulated evidence for the first, fifth, and ninth criteria, thus necessitating a new decision by the Director.
Marketing Manager
Marketing and Advertising · China
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-10-30
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director's decision lacked detailed analysis of the submitted evidence and did not fully explain the reasons for the unfavorable conclusions regarding the claimed criteria. The AAO also noted that the Director failed to identify specific evidence or provide an explanation for the finding of willful misrepresentation, and did not afford the Petitioner an opportunity to rebut this conclusion. Therefore, the AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter for further consideration and a new decision.
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.
Others
Others
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-10-01
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field, despite meeting three initial criteria. Evidence of published material about the Petitioner was limited to 2023-2024, failing to show sustained acclaim over a long period. A single article published in 1990 lacked evidence of citations or sustained acclaim. A leading or critical role in 2014 also lacked evidence of sustained acclaim. Contributions to employers were noted, but major significance to the broader field of Stage Construction and Engineering as it applies to Art, Theatre, and Film Production was not established. Furthermore, the record lacked comparative salary data to prove a high salary in relation to others in the field, which would indicate being at the very top.
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: 2025-01-23.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 5
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist