Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A RFE Issued

Senior Brand Manager

Wine Industry · 2024-08-27

Decision Date
2024-08-27
Location
California
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 alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media (Met)

The Director determined, and the record supports, that the Petitioner provided evidence of published materials about her and her work in professional or major trade publications or other major media, thus meeting this criterion.

Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor (Not Met)

The Director concluded that the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence of having received lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field, and the AAO noted the Director failed to acknowledge the Petitioner's claims regarding this criterion in the RFE response.

Membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their fields (Not Met)

The Director concluded that the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements in the field.

Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field (Not Met)

The Director concluded that the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence of having made original contributions of major significance in her field, and the AAO noted the Director failed to acknowledge the Petitioner's contentions regarding the significance of her contributions in the RFE response.

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

The Director concluded that the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence of displaying her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases.

Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation (Not Met)

The Director concluded that the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence of performing in leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations, and the AAO noted the Director failed to acknowledge the Petitioner's claims regarding this criterion in the RFE response.

Command a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field (Not Met)

The Director concluded that the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence of commanding a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Director's decision was withdrawn and remanded because it was insufficient for review. The Director failed to acknowledge or discuss evidence and arguments provided in response to an RFE for criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), and (viii). Additionally, the decision contained few specific references to the submitted evidence or the Petitioner's explanations, and improperly dismissed evidence from 'unreliable' sources without sufficient support.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The RFE requested additional evidence and explanations for the awards, original contributions of major significance, and leading/critical roles criteria. The Director's subsequent decision was deemed insufficient because it did not acknowledge or discuss the evidence and arguments provided by the Petitioner in response to this RFE.

RFE Targets
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavorOriginal scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the fieldPerformance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation

Evidence

Evidence Types
Media Coverage
Evidence Submitted
  • published materials about her and her work in professional or major trade publications or other major media

Similar Cases

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.

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.

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.

Others

Entertainment

USCIS EB-1A rfe remanded
2024-09-25
The AAO remanded the case because the Director's decision lacked sufficient analysis and discussion of the evidence, reaching conclusory findings without proper explanation. Specifically, the Director failed to adequately address all claimed evidentiary criteria, improperly dismissed evidence due to perceived translation certification issues without explaining the problem, and incorrectly stated that employment verification letters were not provided. The decision did not fully explain the reasons for denial, hindering a fair appeal and meaningful appellate review.

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 Food and Beverage cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-08-27.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 1 / 3
Evidence Types 1

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 919
Success Rate 53.0%
Sustained 487
Dismissed 315

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