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 automotive manager and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and a national interest waiver, though the specific proposed endeavor is not detailed in this decision.
Field: automotive management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director's denial of the underlying exceptional-ability classification was found to lack sufficient analysis; AAO did not itself resolve eligibility but remanded for proper consideration.
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · ignored
“he reasserts that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability and he has met all three Dhanasar prongs, and resubmits related documents”
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 rare procedural remand: the AAO did not evaluate the merits of the NIW prongs or exceptional ability at all, instead finding the Director's denial itself legally insufficient for lacking reasoned analysis under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(i) and BIA precedent on decision completeness. The AAO noted the Director erroneously cited the vacated NYSDOT framework and conflated prong 1 with prong 3, and also flagged confusion over whether Petitioner sought advanced-degree or exceptional-ability classification (he sought only the latter, but the Director's RFE referenced advanced degree criteria and called him an 'industrial engineer'). No prong failure findings were made; case remanded with no opinion expressed on 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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was legally deficient: failed to clearly adjudicate underlying EB-2 classification and conflated Dhanasar prong-1 with prong-3 without reasoned analysis, precluding meaningful appellate review.
Petitioners facing conclusory denials should highlight failure to apply Dhanasar's distinct prongs and lack of reasoned analysis to secure remand, though merits remain undecided.
vague
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers