remanded EB-1A RFE Issued
Tax Specialist
Tax Consultancy Services · Brazil · 2024-11-22
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 metEvidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought. (Met)
The Petitioner served as an instructor for his employer, evaluating and rating student coursework, which the AAO deemed sufficient evidence for this criterion.
Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. (Met)
The Petitioner authored scholarly articles for his employer's website and for two Brazilian publications, including a major, well-respected Brazilian newspaper, satisfying this criterion.
Evidence of the individual's performance of a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. (Met)
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), relating to his service in a critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, and the AAO did not disturb this finding.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded the case because the Petitioner successfully demonstrated meeting three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner met criteria (iv) for judging the work of others, (vi) for authorship of scholarly articles, and (viii) for a critical role in an organization with a distinguished reputation. The decision highlighted the Petitioner's role as an instructor evaluating student coursework and authorship of articles for a major Brazilian newspaper, affirming its prestige through a Britannica.com reference.
Request for Evidence (RFE)
Successfully AddressedThe Director concluded the Petitioner did not meet claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (ix). The RFE response appeared to incorrectly reference criterion (iii) when referring to evidence relating to criterion (vi). The AAO found criteria (iv) and (vi) met, and did not disturb the Director's finding that criterion (viii) was met, leading to a remand.
RFE Targets
published materialjudging experienceoriginal contributionsEvidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.high remuneration
Evidence
Evidence Types
Judging Experience
Scholarly Articles
Leading Role
Evidence Submitted
- Service as an instructor for an employer, involving evaluating and rating coursework of students
- Authorship of scholarly articles in the field of tax law for a previous employer's website
- Authorship of scholarly articles for two publications in Brazil, including a well-known, long-running Brazilian newspaper
- Service in a critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation
Similar Cases
Lawyer
Legal Services · Argentina
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-11-04
The Director's decision was withdrawn because the AAO found the Petitioner met two additional evidentiary criteria beyond the one initially recognized. For 'published material,' the AAO determined that court decisions posted on a judicial website, which mentioned the Petitioner and discussed his arguments in tax-related cases, qualified as professional publications. For 'original contributions of major significance,' the AAO found that the Petitioner's work as a tax lawyer led to repeals and changes in tax regulations with national scope in Argentina, providing guidance to judges and attorneys, thus demonstrating major significance beyond his province.
Director
Consulting
USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-11-26
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner initially only met two of the required three criteria (published material and leading role). However, the AAO found that the Petitioner's 2022 remuneration of RMB 1,958,142, as evidenced by income tax records, qualified her for the high salary criterion, satisfying the minimum three criteria. Therefore, the AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case for a final merits determination.
Consultant
Consulting · Brazil
USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-12-18
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision because the petitioner's clarified intent to work as a consultant and advisor in business, focusing on religious freedom and diversity in the workplace, was deemed to fall within the statutory field of 'business'. The AAO found that the petitioner satisfied three evidentiary criteria: (1) performance in leading or critical roles, (2) participation as a judge through peer review activities for scholarly articles, and (3) authorship of a scholarly article titled 'The I I' published in Consulex Legal Review in 2014. With three criteria met, the case was remanded for a final merits determination, as the Director had not performed this step.
Others
Fintech · China
USCIS EB-1A dismissed
2024-10-17
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate satisfaction of two additional evidentiary criteria required for EB-1A classification. Specifically, the article submitted to China Banking and Insurance News was deemed not scholarly due to lack of research detail, peer review, or citations. For the high salary criterion, inconsistencies in tax records (5,567,813.42 RMB / $782,060 in 2021 and 7,787,602.62 RMB / $1,093,854 in 2022 vs. online records and employer letter) and lack of clarity on whether salary guides included stock compensation led to the finding that high remuneration was not established. The Petitioner only met one criterion (judging), falling short of the three required.
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: 2024-11-22.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 3
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