This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. The specific nature of the endeavor is not described in this decision.
Field: sales management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“SCOPS concluded that while the Petitioner had established the substantial merit of his proposed endeavor and that he is well positioned to advance it, he had not demonstrated his proposed endeavor's national importance”
“SCOPS provided large block quotations from the Petitioner's response to SCOPS' Request for Evidence (RFE), personal statement, and professional plan. However, the decision provided no actual analysis”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the decision concluded, without a specific discussion of documents in the record, that the Petitioner 'has not shown an urgent interest in her [sic] own contributions'”
“'has not demonstrated that she [sic] presents benefits to the United States through his proposed endeavor that outweigh those inherent in the labor certification process.'”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the decision provided no actual analysis of the evidence or specific explanation as to how SCOPS reached their determination”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“without a specific discussion of documents in the record”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO remanded solely on procedural/due process grounds — SCOPS issued a conclusory denial that block-quoted the petitioner's own submissions without providing actual analysis or explanation, depriving the petitioner of meaningful opportunity to contest the decision. Notably, SCOPS had already found prongs 1 (substantial merit) and 2 (well positioned) satisfied, denying only on national importance (p1 sub-element) and prong 3. The decision also contains a gender inconsistency in the SCOPS denial language, alternating between 'her' and 'his' when referring to the petitioner, which the AAO quoted verbatim with '[sic]' notations. The AAO expressly declined to opine on the ultimate merits.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
SCOPS denied on prongs one and three with only block quotations and conclusory statements, providing no actual analysis of the evidence; AAO held that failure to explain required remand.
A denial that block-quotes your evidence without analyzing it is remandable; on appeal, argue specifically that the officer failed to explain the insufficiency.
moderate
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod
- The Petitioner proposed to advance the integration of AI and other exponential technologies—including machine learning,