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 decision does not clearly specify the petitioner's proposed endeavor; the record indicates she holds a bachelor's degree in Nautical Science and over five years of professional experience, and claims eligibility as either an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability seeking an NIW.
Field: nautical science / maritime profession · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found the academic evaluation ambiguous regarding program length/high-school equivalency and found the Petitioner met only one of six exceptional-ability criteria without discussing evidence submitted for two others (membership and licensure/certification); Petitioner submitted new clarifying evidence on appeal, so remand was warranted for the Director to reassess both bases without a final AAO determination.
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
- recommendation letter · ignored
- degree · discounted
- certification membership · ignored
- resume experience · ignored
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
This is a procedural remand rather than a substantive merits decision: the AAO withdrew the Director's denial because it was 'insufficient for review' and 'reaches conclusory findings,' criticizing the Director for failing to analyze submitted evidence (professional plan, expert letter, recommendation letters, certifications) under any of the three Dhanasar prongs or the exceptional-ability criteria, and explicitly expressed no opinion on the ultimate outcome.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was procedurally deficient: conclusory findings on all three Dhanasar prongs and EB-2 classification without analysis of submitted evidence, precluding meaningful appellate review.
This is a procedural remand for inadequate agency reasoning, not a merits ruling; petitioners should still ensure evidence explicitly ties endeavor to national-scale impact for reconsideration.
vague
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp