Outcome: Remanded
SEP022025_02B2203
Our summary
A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.
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 fully analyzed; SCOPS decision lacked explanation of deficiencies | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed; SCOPS incorrectly stated no submission made despite initial filing evidence | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed in RFE response but SCOPS decision does not acknowledge or analyze | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but SCOPS listed minimal evidence without explaining deficiencies | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not adequately explained; SCOPS failed to address evidence | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but analysis failed to address specific evidence provided | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but inadequately analyzed; extensive articles submitted but not acknowledged |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
