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 proposed to work as a business administrator and entrepreneur in the United States, offering innovative and personalized solutions to help U.S.-based small and medium-sized enterprises optimize their logistics operations and supply chains.
Field: logistics and inventory management / business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found SCOPS' denial of the advanced degree and exceptional ability tracks was procedurally defective: SCOPS addressed the advanced degree claim for the first time in the denial without prior RFE notice, and reversed its own RFE finding that four exceptional ability criteria were met without adequate explanation. AAO remanded without reaching the merits.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“SCOPS addressed the Petitioner's request for classification as a member of the professions with an advanced degree for the first time and concluded that he had not demonstrated eligibility.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- business plan · discounted
“SCOPS stated that the business plan was 'inadmissible' because it 'postdates the Form 1-140 priority date, 17 February 2022.'”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“SCOPS also referenced an expert opinion letter and employment letters with dates and quotations that do not match the letters in the record.”
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 remand is entirely procedural: SCOPS appears to have copied substantial portions of its denial from a 2022 denial of a different, earlier petition filed by the same petitioner, resulting in an inaccurate quote of the proposed endeavor, reference to a business plan and letters not in the record, a wrong priority date, and misidentification of the petitioner's field as the 'automotive industry' rather than logistics. SCOPS also reversed its own RFE finding (four exceptional ability criteria met) in the denial without explanation, and denied the advanced degree track without having raised deficiencies in the RFE. The AAO withdrew the decision and remanded without expressing any opinion on the merits.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
SCOPS's denial was based on factual errors: it quoted a misdescribed endeavor, cited a business plan and letters not in this record, misidentified the industry as automotive, and appeared to reuse a prior petition's denial, precluding meaningful review.
Ensure adjudicator decisions and appellate arguments cite only the actual record; a denial built on mismatched evidence from another filing is procedurally infirm regardless of merits.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · 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