Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded for a new decision because the Director committed multiple legal errors in the final merits determination, including penalizing the petitioner for not submitting evidence on criteria that were never claimed, making contradictory findings, and failing to consider all evidence in totality.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
A state retirement system petitioned for its Fund Manager Lead under the EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The Director denied the petition after finding the four claimed criteria were met but concluding the petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO identified serious legal errors: the Director improperly weighed the absence of awards, press coverage, and original contributions as negatives even though none of those criteria were claimed; made contradictory findings on the leading/critical role criterion; and failed to weigh all qualifying evidence together in the final merits analysis. The AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for a new decision that properly evaluates the totality of the record.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established four of the ten EB-1A evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading/critical role, and high salary), clearing the initial threshold. The appeal argument that the Director erred by penalizing the absence of unclaimed evidence was accepted by the AAO.
What failed: The final merits showing of sustained national or international acclaim was insufficient as presented, though the AAO did not reach a final determination. The Director found letters from colleagues inadequate to show original contributions of major significance, though this criterion was never claimed.
Takeaway: When a director improperly evaluates evidence against criteria that were never claimed or makes contradictory findings, appeal the decision and clearly identify those specific legal errors. On remand, ensure all qualifying evidence — particularly on criteria already found to be met — is comprehensively presented and tied to the final merits analysis.
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
- The petitioner successfully established four of the ten EB-1A evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading/critical role, and high salary), clearing the initial threshold
- The appeal argument that the Director erred by penalizing the absence of unclaimed evidence was accepted by the AAO.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The final merits showing of sustained national or international acclaim was insufficient as presented, though the AAO did not reach a final determination
- The Director found letters from colleagues inadequate to show original contributions of major significance, though this criterion was never claimed.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metNot claimed by petitioner; Director improperly weighed absence of awards as a negative factor in final merits
Published material about the person
Not metNot claimed by petitioner; Director improperly weighed absence of press/media coverage as a negative factor in final merits
Judging the work of others
MetDirector found criterion met; AAO noted this evidence was not incorporated into the final merits analysis
Original contributions of major significance
Not metNot claimed by petitioner; Director improperly evaluated absence of original contributions of major significance
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetDirector found criterion met; AAO noted this evidence was not incorporated into the final merits analysis
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetDirector found criterion met but then made contradictory statements in final merits saying the record did not reflect a leading or critical role
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
MetDirector found criterion met; no specific reversal noted by AAO
Evidence of judging the work of others (criterion iv)
Authorship of scholarly articles (criterion vi)
Evidence of serving in a leading or critical role for the petitioning organization (criterion viii)
Evidence of high salary or significantly high remuneration (criterion ix)
Letters from employer and work colleagues were found insufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major significance — though this criterion was not actually claimed
Director penalized petitioner for not submitting evidence on unclaimed criteria (awards, published material, original contributions), improperly weighing their absence as negative factors in the final merits determination
Director made contradictory findings by first determining the leading/critical role criterion was met (criterion viii) and then stating in the final merits that the record did not reflect a leading or critical role
Director failed to consider all qualifying evidence in totality during the final merits determination, specifically omitting evidence related to the judging and scholarly articles criteria
Director's decision did not adequately explain the reasons for denial, depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity to contest and the AAO of meaningful appellate review
Completed
I-140 filed
Fund Manager Lead at a state retirement system; holds Chartered Financial Analyst designation
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-03-11
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded for a new decision because the Director committed multiple legal errors in the final merits determination, including penalizing the petitioner for not submitting evidence on criteria that were never claimed, making contradictory findings, and failing to consider all evidence in totality.
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.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee