NIW Bearings
remandedJAN132026_07B52032026-01-13 · appeal

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 systems engineering specialist, proposed to establish a software solutions consultancy firm in Florida.

Field: information technology / systems engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO found the record supports the petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; 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

AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial not on the merits of the Dhanasar prongs but because SCOPS mischaracterized the petitioner's endeavor (confusing it with an unrelated case involving 'language education' and bilingualism) and failed to analyze the evidence or explain its reasoning, rendering the decision unreviewable under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(i),(iii). The matter was remanded for a new decision without AAO expressing any view on the ultimate eligibility 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

SCOPS's decision was procedurally defective: it mischaracterized the proposed endeavor (confusing it with an unrelated bilingual-education case) and failed to analyze the actual evidence or explain its reasoning under any Dhanasar prong, requiring remand.

Transferable lesson

When an agency decision misidentifies the endeavor or evidence, appeal on procedural/due-process grounds (8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)) rather than solely re-litigating the merits.

Endeavor framing

moderate

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles