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 corporate finance manager (later promoted to CFO), proposed to continue overseeing, analyzing, and managing the finances of U.S. transportation infrastructure projects such as highways, roadways, bridges, and dams from inception through construction and financial closing.
Field: corporate finance / infrastructure project finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the decision does not identify the evidence or sufficiently explain the basis for this determination”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“there is no requirement that a petitioner demonstrate "a significant contribution" in order to satisfy this prong”
“The Director's statements on this issue are therefore withdrawn”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“The Director also stated that because the Petitioner had not satisfied both the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar framework, he therefore did not meet prong three”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · ignored
“The evidence submitted does not support the statements that the Petitioner will be able to make a significant contribution.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
This is an unusual AAO decision where the AAO remands for the Director's own errors of adjudicative reasoning (conclusory denial, internal inconsistency between prongs 1 and 3, failure to address evidence) rather than the Petitioner's evidentiary failures. All three prongs remain formally undecided on the merits; the AAO withdrew the Director's negative findings on prongs 2 and 3 due to inadequate explanation, not because the Petitioner prevailed.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Katigbak
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO remanded because the Director's decision failed to identify evidence or explain reasoning for each Dhanasar prong, denying petitioner a fair opportunity to contest findings and precluding meaningful appellate review.
A denial (or appeal response) must specifically engage the record's evidence and arguments prong-by-prong; conclusory findings invite remand rather than resolution on the merits.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
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, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod