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 civil engineer with a foreign master's degree in structural engineering, proposed to provide civil engineering consulting services through a Florida company he co-founded.
Field: civil/structural engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director's determination that the Petitioner did not provide a detailed description of the proposed endeavor is not supported by the record and was not adequately explained.”
“While the evidence of record may ultimately be insufficient to demonstrate the substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor, the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not satisfy the first prong was conclusory”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
- recommendation letter · ignored
- media · ignored
- other · ignored
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 decision is a remand for insufficient adjudication rather than a merits ruling: the AAO found the Director's denial conclusory, failed to address most evidence and Dhanasar factors, applied heightened standards not found in Dhanasar (e.g., requiring proof the endeavor had already influenced the field), and never reached prongs two or three. The AAO expressly declines to resolve the ultimate eligibility question.
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
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's denial was conclusory, ignored most submitted evidence (business plan, expert letters, economic-impact evidence) and applied an improper heightened standard, precluding meaningful appellate review.
Petitioners should ensure the record explicitly ties endeavor description to national-scale impact evidence, and can seek remand if the agency's denial fails to engage with that evidence under all three Dhanasar prongs.
specific
economic_growth_generic · government_interest
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