AAO research

Why AAO May Remand EB‑1A Petitions After Meeting Three Criteria – Women’s Swimming & Diving Example

The case shows a narrow AAO remand pattern after satisfying three EB‑1A criteria, which is not covered by existing broader pattern pages.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) has issued decisions showing that meeting three out of the four required EB‑1A criteria does not guarantee approval. This case illustrates a narrow but significant pattern: petitioners can satisfy multiple categories while still receiving remand orders.

What Happened in This Decision

In decision APR142023_01B2203, an AAO panel found the petitioner had satisfied three of four EB‑1A criteria (awards, leading critical role, published material) but rejected membership evidence. Crucially, the AAO did not complete a final merits analysis and remanded the petition without addressing overall eligibility.

The Evidence That Was Presented

The petitioner presented:

  • Leading Critical Role: Served as co-captain/team captain of the women's swimming and diving team

  • Awards: Received lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards

  • Published Material: Has published material in professional or major media outlets

  • Membership Evidence: Failed to provide evidence of membership in associations that require outstanding achievements

Why It Was Remanded Despite Satisfying Three Criteria

The AAO remanded this petition for several specific reasons:

  1. Insufficient Membership Evidence: The petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements, which was the only criterion not satisfied.

  1. Incomplete Final Merits Review: Because final merits analysis was not completed, the decision does not establish whether overall eligibility existed or why it might be lacking.

  1. Remand Without Explanation: Unlike typical denial patterns where AAOs provide reasoning for each rejected criterion, this remand occurred without addressing the membership deficiency in detail.

Lessons for EB‑1A Petitioners

This case demonstrates a critical truth: meeting three criteria does not guarantee approval. The AAO has discretion to remand even when multiple categories are satisfied, particularly if:

  • Membership evidence is missing or weak

  • Final merits analysis remains incomplete

  • The petitioner's overall eligibility requires further review

Petitioners should understand that satisfying some categories is necessary but insufficient for approval.

Source Note

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