Outcome: Remanded
JUL182022_01B2203
Our summary
An attorney specializing in international dispute resolution and arbitration claimed EB-1A classification. The Director improperly dismissed the petition without analyzing evidentiary criteria, wrongly concluding attorneys fall outside extraordinary ability categories. The AAO found the petitioner's work in international arbitration falls within the business field and remanded for proper evaluation of claimed criteria.
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 | Claimed but not analyzed by Director; remand required for proper evaluation. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed by Director; remand required for proper evaluation. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed by Director; remand required for proper evaluation. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed by Director; remand required for proper evaluation. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed by Director; remand required for proper evaluation. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed by Director; remand required for proper evaluation. | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Director did not evaluate whether petitioner meets three criteria or sustained acclaim threshold. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
