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 proposed to provide advisory and support services implementing standardized risk management systems for small and medium-sized businesses in the United States.
Field: finance and risk management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner submitted foreign diplomas and transcripts but did not submit a foreign equivalency evaluation, so he did not establish the degrees were equivalent to U.S. bachelor's/master's degrees; the Director's finding on exceptional ability was also incomplete.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the Director stated that the Petitioner did not demonstrate his work "would have broader implications for the medical field."”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“the Director erroneously state that the Petitioner is "not well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor to be a nurse practitioner for an ill patient."”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“The Director stated that the Petitioner's endeavor "as a Financial Analyst for one client" would not produce the widespread benefits to the United States.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“did not submit a foreign equivalency evaluation in his RFE response”
AAO decision text - other · credited
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 Director's decision contained apparent boilerplate/copy-paste errors from unrelated cases, referencing the Petitioner as a 'nurse practitioner for an ill patient' and discussing 'broader implications for the medical field,' despite the Petitioner being a financial and investment analyst with no connection to the medical field. AAO withdrew the decision and remanded due to these errors rather than reaching a substantive determination on any prong.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision contained clear factual errors—citing an unrelated 'medical field'/'nurse practitioner' analysis and mischaracterizing the endeavor as serving 'one client'—requiring remand for a proper Dhanasar analysis on the actual record.
On appeal, scrutinize denials for boilerplate or mismatched-template errors (wrong occupation/field) as independent grounds for remand, separate from substantive NIW merits.
moderate
economic_growth_generic
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution