When an EB-1A Denial Does Not Address the Record: An Automotive Engineer’s Remand
An appeal can expose serious defects in an EB-1A denial without establishing that the petition should be approved. In In Re: 43888520, USCIS discussed a criterion the petitioner had not claimed, referred to evidence absent from the record, misdescribed registered patents, and failed to address income and comparison data. The AAO withdrew the decision and returned the matter for a new adjudication. Its reasoning concerned the adequacy of the denial, not a finding that the engineer had already proved extraordinary ability.
The September 3, 2026 nonprecedent decision spans three pages. It provides a concrete example of distinguishing an error in agency analysis from an affirmative eligibility determination, within the two-stage evidentiary framework the AAO applied in this historical case.
The claimed criteria and the finding actually made
The automotive engineer and entrepreneur intended to implement innovation projects in the United States. Without a major internationally recognized award, he claimed seven alternative criteria: lesser awards, membership, original contributions, scholarly authorship, artistic display, leading or critical roles, and high salary. USCIS accepted the awards criterion but rejected the others. See page 2.
The appeal alleged that the denial addressed an unclaimed criterion, omitted a claimed criterion, failed to analyze comparable evidence, and relied on material from a prior petition. The AAO agreed that the decision did not adequately address the specific claims and evidence in the present record. Its agreement with analytical objections was not a ruling that every disputed criterion was satisfied.
Concrete record errors required a new decision
The denial analyzed published material about the petitioner, although he had not claimed that criterion. It mentioned business-service contracts absent from the record and described all patents as provisional even though the record contained registered patents. It also failed to address several months of income evidence and comparative salary data. These were material problems in explaining the decision, rather than a requirement that USCIS discuss every document individually. See page 2.
The AAO further identified unclear treatment of comparable evidence for scholarly authorship and artistic display, along with conflation of those criteria. Comparable evidence requires a properly supported analysis under the regulation; this remand did not establish that an engineer’s submissions necessarily qualified as comparable evidence. See pages 2–3.
Initial criteria and overall acclaim serve different functions
As the decision explains, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) permits evidence of “a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award)” or qualifying evidence under at least three listed categories. The AAO applied Kazarian’s distinction between the initial criteria and the later assessment of sustained acclaim and standing at the top of the field. See pages 1–2.
The AAO found that USCIS improperly imported the sustained-acclaim inquiry into the initial-criteria evaluation. It did not eliminate the later merits inquiry. Meeting an initial evidentiary category and establishing overall extraordinary ability remained separate questions under the framework used in this decision. See page 3.
The order withdrew the denial and remanded
The final order withdrew the decision and remanded for a new decision consistent with the analysis. The AAO expressly cautioned that the evidence might ultimately remain insufficient. There was no approval, no conclusive finding of three satisfied criteria, and no guarantee of a favorable result on remand. See page 3.
How to identify a record-based appellate issue
A useful review compares each claimed criterion with the denial’s actual discussion and the evidence submitted in this petition. Specific exhibit references can show an omitted salary comparison, a misidentified patent, or reliance on documents from another record. Counsel should distinguish those errors from an argument that the evidence affirmatively meets every eligibility requirement. The complete record, applicable judicial authority, and subsequent developments must be assessed individually; this nonprecedent decision is not a binding promise of remand in other cases.
Legal Disclaimer. Originally published: 11/01/2026. This article provides general information only and is not legal advice for any particular matter. Laws, policies, procedures, fees and agency practices may change; their application depends on the facts and jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney about your circumstances before acting on this information. Reading this article or contacting Blumsack & Canzano does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
