AAO research

Why AAO May Remand EB‑1A Cases Even After Satisfying Three Criteria

Shows that satisfying three EB‑1A criteria can still result in an AAO remand, emphasizing the need for evidence on all criteria and preparation for a final merits review.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) has repeatedly remanded EB‑1A petitions for final merits review despite the Service Center Officer's (SCOPS) determination that the petitioner satisfied three of the five criteria.

This pattern demonstrates a critical procedural reality: meeting three EB‑1A criteria does not guarantee approval. The AAO retains authority to order a final merits review, and petitioners must be prepared for this possibility regardless of how many criteria appear to have been met at earlier stages.

What Happened in This Case

In decision APR282026_06B2203 (noted as not dated), the AAO remanded an EB‑1A application despite finding that the SCOPS had satisfied three of the five criteria: judging, published material about the petitioner, and scholarly articles. The AAO specifically noted:

  • No analysis was provided regarding the leading or critical role criterion

  • No analysis was provided regarding the original contributions criterion

  • No final merits review of the overall petition was conducted

The remand order required the case to be returned for a complete merits analysis under 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3).

Why This Pattern Occurs

This outcome reflects established AAO procedure rather than an anomaly:

  1. Incomplete SCOPS Review: The SCOPS typically evaluates individual criteria separately but may not perform a final merits review of the entire petition

  2. Remand Authority: Under 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3), the AAO can remand for additional evidence or complete analysis even when three criteria appear satisfied

  3. Procedural Standard: The AAO applies the same evidentiary standard across all cases, regardless of how many criteria seem to be met at earlier stages

Evidence Required for All Criteria

The case illustrates that petitioners must demonstrate original contributions and leading/critical role evidence alongside their judging, published material, and scholarly articles documentation. Key considerations:

Criterion What Strong Evidence Looks Like ----------- -------------------------------- Leading/Critical Role Documentation showing the petitioner's essential contribution to specific projects or organizations Original Contributions Clear demonstration of how the work was original and made significant contributions

How to Avoid Remand

  1. Prepare for Final Merits Review: Assume your case will be remanded regardless of initial findings

  2. Complete Evidence Package: Ensure you have documentation addressing all five criteria before filing

  3. Anticipate Complete Analysis: Be ready for the AAO to evaluate the petition holistically, not just individually

Source Note

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