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 sought to work in the U.S. for a top IT company as a Sales Manager/Customer Experience Representative performing B2B sales and support services.
Field: sales / IT business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found the Director never determined whether the Petitioner's occupation qualifies as a member of the professions, whether his Brazilian 'Lato Sensu' MBA is a foreign equivalent degree above baccalaureate, or whether his 'Technologist in Data Processing' credential meets the baccalaureate-equivalent-plus-five-years standard; remanded for these determinations, noting unresolved discrepancies between the petitioner's credential evaluation and AACRAO EDGE.
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“we must also withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director did not sufficiently conduct an analysis of the third prong”
“further discussion of the balancing factors under this prong will serve no meaningful purpose”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The Petitioner must resolve the above inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the evaluator claims to be a member of AACRAO, he fails to address the discrepancies between EDGE's conclusions and his own”
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
This is a remand decision rather than a merits win/loss: the AAO withdrew the Director's decision for failing to resolve the underlying EB-2 classification (profession/advanced-degree equivalency and exceptional-ability criteria) and for withdrawing an unsupported positive finding on Dhanasar prong 2 (based on unresolved education issues) and an inadequate prong 3 analysis; ordered that any new adverse decision be certified back to AAO rather than requiring a new appeal fee.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director failed to first resolve underlying EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree/exceptional ability) and did not properly conduct all three Dhanasar prongs, especially prong three, before denying.
Establish underlying EB-2 classification eligibility clearly and ensure adjudicators fully analyze all three Dhanasar prongs, including third-prong balancing, before any NIW denial.
vague
person_focused
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