remanded EB-1C
Head Quality Assurance Manager
Restaurant Franchisor And Seller Of Prepackaged Foods · 2025-02-20
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
0 of 1 criteria metManagerial Capacity (Not Met)
The Director concluded that the record did not establish the Beneficiary was employed abroad, and would be employed in the United States, in a primarily managerial capacity.
Why This Petition Was Remanded
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) remanded the case because the Director's dismissal of the motion to reconsider lacked specific reasons, and the finding of willful misrepresentation was presented without sufficient context or details, thus not allowing the Petitioner a proper opportunity for rebuttal. The AAO requires the Director to provide more information and specific explanations.
Similar Cases
Quality Assurance Analyst
Food and Beverage · India
USCIS EB-1C remanded
2025-01-17
The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) withdrew the Director's decision to dismiss the motion to reconsider because it did not sufficiently explain the reasons for dismissal. The Director failed to specify which motion requirements were unmet or why the Petitioner's evidence fell short of classification requirements, thus depriving the Petitioner of a fair chance to appeal and hindering meaningful review.
Others
Wholesale Trade
USCIS EB-1C dismissed
2025-02-24
The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not state new facts supported by documentary evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The Petitioner merely repeated prior assertions and failed to address the AAO's reason for dismissing the first motion, which was the lack of required initial evidence for several EB-1C criteria.
General Manager
Wholesale Trade
USCIS EB-1C rfe dismissed
2024-12-05
The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner omitted crucial initial evidence, including proof of the U.S. job offer, qualifying relationship, ability to pay, foreign employment duration, and continuing foreign operations, and failed to respond to the RFE. The AAO dismissed the appeal because it did not challenge the Director's findings. The motion to reopen was dismissed because it did not challenge the AAO's summary dismissal and the new evidence provided did not remedy the original denial grounds or constitute the required initial evidence for EB-1C eligibility.
Others
Others · China
USCIS EB-1C dismissed
2023-11-13
The Petitioner failed to provide valid certified English translations for foreign language documents as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(iii). The motion to reopen did not state new facts or provide new documentary evidence, and the motion to reconsider failed to establish an incorrect application of law or policy in the prior decision.
Frequently Asked Questions
A remanded EB-1C 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: 2025-02-20.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome remanded
Criteria Met 0 / 1
EB-1C Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 89
Success Rate 15.7%
Sustained 14
Dismissed 47
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist