Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?

Criteria claimed: 0, counted: 0.

How did this appeal end?

The case was remanded: the AAO withdrew the decision and sent it back to the officer - not a final approval, but not a final denial either.

Did the case reach the final-merits stage?

No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.

All EB-1A appeals

case remandedEngineering20250 criteria counted

Civil Engineering and Construction Management

AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa

Updated: September 10, 2026Author: Alina Kanametova

This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Civil Engineering and Construction Management (Engineering), 2025. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 0 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.

EB-1A criteria in this case

Awardsnot claimed
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about younot claimed
Judgingnot claimed
Original contributionnot claimed
Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolenot claimed
High remunerationnot claimed
Commercial successnot claimed
Comparable evidencenot claimed

How to read this case

The record of this case has no criterion marked "not counted", yet it never reached the final-merits stage. That happens when the dispute was resolved another way - for example, the case was sent back to the officer - and the AAO did not record a verdict on each criterion. Use the decision excerpt and the similar cases below.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The AAO found the Director's denial was flawed due to a lack of complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence, specifically failing to address the Petitioner's responses to the Request for Evidence (RFE) and arguments in a supporting legal brief. The decision did not adequately explain the deficiencies in the evidence or apply the relevant regulatory provisions.

The quote summarizes a fragment of the decision; the table above reflects the FINAL status of the criteria across all stages of the case (including ones conceded before the appeal), so the wording may not match one-to-one.

Full AAO decision of January 27, 2025 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?: Criteria claimed: 0, counted: 0.
How did this appeal end?: The case was remanded: the AAO withdrew the decision and sent it back to the officer - not a final approval, but not a final denial either.
Did the case reach the final-merits stage?: No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.

Terms in this case:RFE (request for evidence)final merits AAO (appeals office)

All EB-1A appeals O-1 / EB-1A criteria Analyze my case Which visa fits

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

Talent visa for Engineering What is the US talent visa

This is an anonymized public decision of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), shown for reference. Not legal advice and not a guarantee of your own outcome; every case is decided on its own facts.