Outcome: Remanded
APR172025_07B2203
Our summary
A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
Every criterion in the table was found met.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Claimed, not analyzed | Director did not fully analyze award evidence; remanded for complete analysis of claimed awards criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion claimed; Director incorrectly rejected prospective evidence dated after filing on remand | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion claimed but not fully analyzed by Director on remand | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion claimed but not fully analyzed by Director on remand | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion claimed but not fully analyzed by Director on remand | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Case remanded before final merits analysis could be completed |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
