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, an auditor, sought to work in the field of accounting/auditing in the United States, submitting articles and reports on industry trends to support national importance.
Field: accounting/auditing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director already found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the submitted evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's proposed endeavor has national importance as there is no significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“the Director did not address a large portion of the submitted evidence, including an expert opinion and letters of support”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the record does not demonstrate the widespread benefits associated with the beneficiary's working as an Auditor in the field of accounting”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · discounted
“the submitted evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's proposed endeavor has national importance as there is no significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“the Director did not address a large portion of the submitted evidence, including an expert opinion and letters of support”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the petitioner does not explain how reviewing manuscripts for various journals demonstrates she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor”
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 substantive prong failure: the AAO found the Director's decision inadequately explained under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(i), failing to apply Dhanasar factors or address significant portions of the record, and remanded for a properly reasoned decision rather than affirming or reversing on the merits of 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
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO remanded because the Director issued conclusory findings on national importance, positioning, and balancing without applying Dhanasar factors to the evidence or explaining the reasoning, violating explanation requirements.
Adjudicators must tie conclusions to specific record evidence under each Dhanasar prong; petitioners should highlight unaddressed evidence on appeal to force a reasoned remand.
vague
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