Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided September 2025Remanded

Outcome: Remanded

SEP022025_02B2203

AwardsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzed

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

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not fully analyzed; SCOPS decision lacked explanation of deficiencies
High salaryClaimed, not analyzedClaimed; SCOPS incorrectly stated no submission made despite initial filing evidence
JudgingClaimed, not analyzedClaimed in RFE response but SCOPS decision does not acknowledge or analyze
Leading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but SCOPS listed minimal evidence without explaining deficiencies
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not adequately explained; SCOPS failed to address evidence
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but analysis failed to address specific evidence provided
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedClaimed 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.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.