NIW Bearings
remandedJAN102023_01B52032023-01-10 · appeal · Texas 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 decision does not describe the specific endeavor beyond identifying the Petitioner as an entrepreneur; the record's sufficiency on national importance was not itself detailed.

Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed.

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

The AAO remanded not for a substantive prong failure but because the Director's decision failed to address the first Dhanasar prong at all, despite having raised it in an RFE. The AAO expressly declines to reach any prong itself and expresses no opinion on the ultimate outcome, making this a purely procedural remand rather than a merits determination.

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.

Decisive factor

Director's decision addressed only Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3, omitting analysis of prong 1 (substantial merit and national importance) despite RFE response evidence, making decision unreviewable.

Transferable lesson

Ensure adjudicators (and petitioners on appeal) confirm all three Dhanasar prongs are explicitly addressed; an unaddressed prong warrants remand regardless of merits.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles