NIW Bearings
remandedFEB062024_01B52032024-02-06 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center

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 accounting specialist, sought to continue work in accounting in the United States, though the specifics of her proposed endeavor were disputed as insufficiently detailed by the Director.

Field: accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner did not meet three of six exceptional ability criteria but failed to specify which criteria were unmet or why; AAO remanded for the Director to properly evaluate the evidence rather than affirming a failure.

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 procedural remand rather than a merits determination: the AAO found the Director's denial itself deficient for failing to specify which EB-2 exceptional ability criteria were unmet and for failing to analyze the record evidence under the Dhanasar framework, rather than the AAO itself finding any prong or threshold requirement 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)(iii)
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Director's denial lacked specific reasoning: failed to identify which exceptional-ability criteria were unmet or why Dhanasar prongs failed, precluding meaningful appellate review.

Transferable lesson

Procedural remands turn on adjudicator's failure to explain reasoning; petitioners should press for specificity but merits of endeavor/importance remain unresolved and must be re-argued below.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles