EB-1AEntrepreneurshipIndividualDecided February 2026Remanded
Outcome: Remanded
FEB022026_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetAwardsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · SCOPS determined petitioner met this criterion; AAO did not disturb.
- Leading or critical role · SCOPS determined petitioner met criterion for leading or critical roles; AAO did not disturb.
What was missing
Every criterion in the table was found met.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS determined petitioner met this criterion; AAO did not disturb. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | SCOPS determined petitioner met criterion for leading or critical roles; AAO did not disturb. |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not fully evaluated due to undisclosed USCIS research. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed; petitioner requested consideration of comparable evidence including equity holdings. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not fully evaluated; petitioner requested consideration of comparable evidence under regulation. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Not reached due to procedural defect requiring remand. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.