AAO Remand When No EB‑1A Criteria Are Discussed

This page explains a common pattern in Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decisions where petitions are remanded without any merits review because no eligibility criteria were addressed.

What Happened

The decision APR112016_02B2203 contains only a procedural remand. The AAO found that the petition presented "no evidence or analysis presented for any EB‑1A eligibility criteria." No field, occupation, or specific criteria (including sustained acclaim, original contributions, critical importance, or national interest) were discussed in either the petition or the supporting documentation.

Why This Matters

This decision illustrates a straightforward pattern: when an applicant fails to explicitly address at least one of the six EB‑1A eligibility categories before filing, the AAO typically remands without conducting a merits review. The reasoning is that proper adjudication requires examining whether each criterion has been satisfied—without this examination, no meaningful determination can be made.

How to Avoid This Pattern

The core lesson from this decision and others in our database is simple: address at least one EB‑1A criterion explicitly before filing. This does not mean you must satisfy that criterion—you may still fail—but it means the AAO cannot remand procedurally without a merits review.

Source Note

Non-precedent AAO decisions are used as evidence examples. They are not binding authority and do not predict any individual case.