AAO Remand Decisions That Still Count as Meeting EB‑1A Criteria – Lessons from an Advertising Case

This is a non-precedent Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decision, which means it does not establish binding precedent. The case involves an advertising professional whose petition was remanded to the National Visa Center for further review under section 204(c). Despite this outcome, the AAO's written findings in this decision provide important lessons about how EB‑1A criteria can still be affirmed even when a petition is remanded.

The petitioner had presented evidence across seven potential criteria: artistic display of work at exhibitions; awards and prizes (though with some questions raised by the Director); commercial success claims; high salary; leading or critical role in organizations; membership in professional associations (not contested by petitioner); and original contributions to the advertising field. The AAO's analysis offers useful guidance on what constitutes sufficient evidence for each criterion, particularly when there are gaps or ambiguities.

The decision is notable because it demonstrates that a remand does not automatically erase findings of merit by the National Visa Center (NVC) – those can still be counted in the overall pattern of evidence. However, it also highlights how scrivener errors and other documentation issues can undermine even seemingly favorable findings.

---

What Happened

The petitioner applied for an EB‑1A immigrant visa as an advertising professional. The NVC initially found that two criteria were met (leading/critical role in organizations plus artistic display of work at exhibitions) but requested additional evidence on the third criterion, awards and prizes. When the petition was remanded to the AAO under section 204(c), the petitioner submitted more evidence.

The AAO reviewed all submissions and found that while three criteria were met (artistic display, awards/prizes, and leading/critical role in organizations), one criterion – original contributions to the advertising field – had been incorrectly found "met" by both parties. The Director determined this was actually a scrivener's error and denied that criterion due to insufficient proof of major significance.

The AAO remanded the petition back to the NVC for reconsideration, but explicitly stated in its written findings:

> "Petitioner has met at least three of the seven criteria as required by Matter of Nassar."

This means even though the petition was ultimately remanded and not approved, the AAO's own analysis confirmed that the petitioner satisfied the minimum threshold of three qualifying criteria.

---

The Evidence Breakdown

The following table summarizes how each criterion was evaluated:

Criterion Evidence Submitted AAO Finding ----------- ------------------- ------------- Artistic display Displayed work at artistic exhibitions Met (affirmed) Awards and prizes Submitted evidence of awards; Director questioned national recognition level Met (affirmed, with reservation on scope) Commercial success Claims regarding commercial impact of advertising work Not addressed by AAO High salary Salary information Not addressed by AAO Leading/critical role Evidence showing leadership and critical contributions to professional organizations Met (affirmed) Membership in professional associations Submitted membership evidence; not contested by petitioner Not addressed by AAO Original contributions Claims of original business-related contributions to advertising field; insufficient major significance proof Denied due to scrivener error

---

Key Lessons

Lesson 1: Remand ≠ Erasure Even when a petition is remanded, the AAO's written findings can still establish that certain criteria were met. The petitioner in this case was able to demonstrate three qualifying criteria despite the overall remand outcome.

Lesson 2: Scrivener Errors Can Overturn Findings The decision demonstrates how easily evidence can be undermined by documentation errors. The original contributions criterion was found "met" due to a scrivener's error, which the Director corrected and used as a basis for denial. This underscores why precise, well-documented evidence is essential.

Lesson 3: Awards Evidence Requires National Recognition The AAO questioned whether the petitioner's awards met the threshold of national or international recognition required by EB‑1A criteria. Petitioners should be prepared to demonstrate that their awards are recognized at a level sufficient for immigration purposes.

---

What This Means for Advertising Professionals

For advertising professionals seeking EB‑1A approval, this decision highlights several important considerations:

First, ensure your evidence is meticulously documented and error-free. The scrivener error on original contributions shows how easily even favorable findings can be overturned through documentation mistakes.

Second, recognize that remand decisions still count as meeting criteria when the AAO's written analysis affirms them. This means petitioners should not assume a remand automatically means all criteria were denied.

Third, understand that awards evidence must meet specific thresholds – national or international recognition is required, and you may need to provide additional documentation to demonstrate this level of recognition.

Fourth, be prepared for the AAO to question even seemingly straightforward evidence. The Director's skepticism about award scope shows how petitioners should anticipate rigorous scrutiny of all submitted materials.

---

Source Note

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