Visalytics
Visalytics
remanded EB-1A

Individual Of Extraordinary Ability

Field Of Endeavor · 2024-10-15

Decision Date
2024-10-15
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
Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)

The Director determined this criterion was met, and the AAO implicitly agreed by not challenging this finding.

Leading or critical role (Met)

The Director determined this criterion was met, and the AAO implicitly agreed by not challenging this finding.

High salary or other remuneration (Met)

The AAO agreed with the Petitioner that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion, citing compensation data from sources like the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Awards (Not Met)

The Petitioner maintained this criterion was met, but the AAO did not explicitly agree or provide a summary of its evaluation, implying it was not found to be met or was not sufficiently argued.

Published material about the alien (Not Met)

The Petitioner maintained this criterion was met, but the AAO did not explicitly agree or provide a summary of its evaluation, implying it was not found to be met or was not sufficiently argued.

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

The Petitioner maintained this criterion was met, but the AAO did not explicitly agree or provide a summary of its evaluation, implying it was not found to be met or was not sufficiently argued.

Why This Petition Was Remanded

The Director's decision was withdrawn because the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Petitioner had satisfied a third evidentiary criterion, high salary, in addition to the two criteria (authorship of scholarly articles and leading or critical role) previously acknowledged by the Director. This fulfillment of three criteria overcame the initial basis for denial, necessitating a remand for the Director to conduct a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Evidence

Evidence Types
Scholarly Articles
Leading Role
High Salary
Evidence Submitted
  • authorship of scholarly articles
  • leading or critical role
  • high salary relative to others working in the field

Similar Cases

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.

Education Administrator

Education

USCIS EB-1A remanded
2024-05-02
The Petitioner met three criteria: judging (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)), scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)), and leading or critical role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)). Specifically, his roles as Acting President and Vice President for Academic Affairs at G-U-S-T- were deemed leading or critical for an organization with a distinguished reputation.

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.

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.

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 Others cases

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-10-15.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome remanded
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

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