EB-1AFinance and economicsIndividualDecided 2026Remanded
Outcome: Remanded
MAY112026_02B2203
AwardsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
An investment portfolio manager claimed four EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied without adequately analyzing submitted evidence or explaining rejections. The AAO found SCOPS failed to address the plain language of the criteria with specificity and remanded for proper re-evaluation and meaningful opportunity for response.
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 |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not adequately analyzed by SCOPS; remand for proper evaluation of identified evidence |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not adequately analyzed; SCOPS dismissal lacked proper explanation |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but inadequately analyzed; SCOPS relied on undisclosed public sources rather than record |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not meaningfully analyzed by SCOPS; remand for proper evaluation |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Initial evidence not established by SCOPS; if met on remand, final merits must be analyzed |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.