Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director improperly dismissed the motion to reopen as untimely (COVID-19 flexibility allowed 60-day filing window) and failed to address eight of the nine claimed evidentiary criteria in both the RFE and the denial decision.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a global security expert, sought EB-1A classification and claimed nine evidentiary criteria. The Texas Service Center Director denied the petition after addressing only one criterion in both the RFE and the denial decision, and then improperly dismissed a motion to reopen as untimely despite COVID-19 pandemic filing flexibilities that extended the deadline. The AAO found two independent procedural errors: failure to apply the COVID-19 flexibility allowing a 63-day window, and failure to provide adequate RFE notice and a full denial explanation for the eight unaddressed criteria. Because no merits determination could be made on the incomplete record, the AAO withdrew both decisions and remanded for a complete evaluation of all claimed criteria.
What failed: The Director committed procedural errors by addressing only one of the nine claimed evidentiary criteria in both the RFE and the denial, and incorrectly dismissed the motion to reopen without accounting for COVID-19 pandemic filing flexibilities. These errors prevented any substantive merits evaluation from being completed.
Takeaway: When an officer issues a deficient RFE that ignores claimed criteria, document the procedural failure carefully on appeal — the AAO will remand for a complete review. Also verify that all COVID-19-era filing flexibility policies are applied when calculating deadlines for motions filed during that period.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Director committed procedural errors by addressing only one of the nine claimed evidentiary criteria in both the RFE and the denial, and incorrectly dismissed the motion to reopen without accounting for COVID-19 pandemic filing flexibilities
- These errors prevented any substantive merits evaluation from being completed.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metThe only criterion the Director actually evaluated; AAO found the Director failed to properly assess all criteria and remanded without ruling on merits.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metClaimed by petitioner but not addressed by Director in RFE or denial; remanded for proper review.
Published material about the person
Not metClaimed by petitioner but not addressed by Director in RFE or denial; remanded for proper review.
Judging the work of others
Not metClaimed by petitioner but not addressed by Director in RFE or denial; remanded for proper review.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metClaimed by petitioner but not addressed by Director in RFE or denial; remanded for proper review.
Authorship of scholarly articles
Not metClaimed by petitioner but not addressed by Director in RFE or denial; remanded for proper review.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metClaimed by petitioner but not addressed by Director in RFE or denial; remanded for proper review.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metClaimed by petitioner but not addressed by Director in RFE or denial; remanded for proper review.
Commercial successes in the performing arts
Not metClaimed by petitioner but not addressed by Director in RFE or denial; remanded for proper review.
Completed
I-140 filed
Global security expert
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2024-01-23
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director improperly dismissed the motion to reopen as untimely (COVID-19 flexibility allowed 60-day filing window) and failed to address eight of the nine claimed evidentiary criteria in both the RFE and the denial decision.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.