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 software developer, proposed to work for U.S. companies across sectors, developing IT teams and systems and improving software development practices to boost business productivity and competitiveness.
Field: software development / information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director never determined whether the petitioner's occupation qualifies as a member of the professions or whether his foreign degree is equivalent to a baccalaureate plus five years progressive experience; the Director also found three of five exceptional-ability criteria met without specifying which ones or conducting a final merits determination.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“as the Director's determination appears to be based, at least in part, on the Petitioner's education, we must also withdraw the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director did not sufficiently conduct an analysis of the third prong.”
“since the Petitioner had not met the second prong, "further discussion of the balancing factors under this prong will serve no meaningful purpose."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · ignored
“the Director does not conclude whether the Petitioner's "Informatics Technologist" degree ... [is] a foreign equivalent of a baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“the Director only addressed his eligibility as it pertained to an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business.”
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 procedural remand rather than a merits decision: the AAO withdrew the Director's decision because he never resolved threshold EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree professional status, or which exceptional-ability criteria were met and a final merits determination) and never properly conducted the third-prong Dhanasar balancing analysis, instead skipping it after finding prong two unmet.
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)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO found the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree/exceptional ability) was never properly adjudicated and the Dhanasar prongs were incompletely/erroneously analyzed, requiring remand rather than a merits ruling.
Ensure the Director (and record) first cleanly establishes underlying EB-2 classification before layering NIW analysis; incomplete threshold findings force remand regardless of NIW merits.
vague
economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness
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