Outcome: Remanded
MAR102026_01B2203
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
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; service center did not evaluate evidence under criteria | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Not 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.
