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 sales manager in the packaging industry, proposed to continue working in this role in the United States for various companies.
Field: sales management in the packaging industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the decision does not adequately address the documentation in the record”
“the decision vaguely concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor without considering his supplemental evidence”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The Director's conclusion with regard to this prong, therefore, is unclear.”
“the Director's decision did not address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response to the RFE in support of the second prong”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director did not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing those considerations or address the Petitioner's specific claims as to the third prong”
“Without a proper evaluation of the factors identified in Dhanasar 's third prong, the Director's determination for this prong was in error.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · 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
AAO withdrew the Director's denial not because the Petitioner failed any prong, but because the Director's decision failed to adequately consider RFE evidence and issued internally inconsistent statements (e.g., contradictory findings on prong two within the same decision, and a prong three denial premised on prongs one and two despite an earlier statement that prong two was satisfied). The case was remanded for a new decision with no opinion expressed on the merits.
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.
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's denial failed to meaningfully engage with RFE evidence and gave internally inconsistent conclusions across all three Dhanasar prongs, denying the petitioner a fair basis to contest the decision.
On appeal, highlight specific instances where the Director ignored or misquoted RFE evidence or issued contradictory prong findings to obtain remand rather than argue the merits directly.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · other
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod