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, an entrepreneur and CEO, sought to establish a food manufacturing and distribution business in the United States.
Field: food manufacturing and distribution · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director did not make a determination on exceptional ability despite petitioner submitting evidence for five of six criteria; AAO remanded for the Director to evaluate the criteria and conduct a final merits determination.
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 based on the Director's decision being insufficient for review, not a substantive merits determination on any Dhanasar prong. The AAO found the Director's denial conclusory, failing to explain why evidence was insufficient for prongs 1 and 3, and failing to reach prong 2 at all. The AAO also noted the Director never determined whether the petitioner met the underlying exceptional ability classification despite evidence for five of six regulatory criteria. No prong failure codes apply since no prong was actually analyzed/failed by the AAO itself.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's decision was conclusory, failed to discuss evidence or explain reasoning on exceptional ability or Dhanasar prongs, precluding meaningful appellate review, requiring remand.
This is a procedural remand for adjudicator error, not a merits ruling; petitioners should still ensure the record clearly ties evidence to each Dhanasar prong for the renewed decision.
vague
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers