Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided March 2026Remanded

Outcome: Remanded

MAR102026_01B2203

AwardsClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed

Our summary

A Ukrainian attorney seeks EB-1A as self-petitioner proposing international legal consultancy work in environmental law and Ukraine-related projects. Service center wrongly excluded law categorically from EB-1 eligibility and failed to analyze claimed criteria. AAO remanded, finding attorney's work falls within social science or business field and requiring proper criterion-by-criterion evaluation.

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

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria
ExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria
JudgingClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria
Leading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria
Scholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria
Final meritsNot reached / not discussedNot reached; service center failed categorical analysis before merits review

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.