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 marketing and data analytics consultant, appears to have proposed work as a market research analyst, though the AAO noted the Director never clearly identified her proposed endeavor.
Field: marketing and data analytics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director never made a finding on underlying EB-2 eligibility; AAO questions whether petitioner's Brazilian 'Pos-Graduacao Lato Sensu' course, found by an evaluator to be equivalent to a U.S. MBA, actually qualifies as an advanced degree, noting the evaluator failed to address the distinction between lato sensu and strictu sensu programs in Brazil.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the evaluator does not address the distinction between lato sensus and strictu sensus programs in Brazil nor explain why this lato sensu course should be considered equivalent”
AAO decision text - citations publications · ignored
“other than stating that the Petitioner 'submitted approximately 30 articles,' the Director did not discuss the evidence at all”
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 remand for procedural insufficiency rather than a merits decision: the AAO found the Director's decision lacked clear findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and insufficiently analyzed all three Dhanasar prongs, including failing to even identify the proposed endeavor. The AAO expressly declines to reach the merits, remanding for a new decision.
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
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's decision was procedurally deficient: no finding on underlying EB-2 eligibility, no identification of the endeavor, and no analysis of evidence supporting denial under prongs 1 and 3, precluding meaningful review.
Adjudicators must clearly identify the endeavor and analyze record evidence under each Dhanasar prong; unexplained conclusory denials risk remand regardless of merits.
vague
other
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution