Outcome: Remanded
JUN022022_02B2203
Our summary
An entrepreneur in vehicle competition and recreation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO remanded because the Director failed to properly analyze several claimed criteria and applied unsupported evidentiary standards, particularly regarding published material and continuation of work in the United States.
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
- Awards · Director found petitioner met criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards
What was missing
- Published material · Director rejected letters from publications, citing lack of authors' curricula vitae; AAO found this standard unsupported
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director found petitioner met criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards | |
| Not met | Director rejected letters from publications, citing lack of authors' curricula vitae; AAO found this standard unsupported | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed by petitioner but inadequately analyzed by Director | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed by petitioner but Director's analysis unclear or incomplete | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Director failed to adequately analyze this claimed criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed by petitioner but Director failed to provide analysis | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Initial evidence threshold not established; final merits analysis deferred to remand |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
