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.
A former business/marketing executive proposed a dual endeavor: launching an online fashion jewelry business using a self-funded marketing plan, and providing outside marketing consulting services to two companies that expressed interest in his services.
Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on his MBA and work experience; only the waiver issue remained.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director's decision thus imposes a higher burden on the Petitioner to establish the substantial merit of his endeavor than is required under the Dhanasar framework.”
“the Director did not then explain why the endeavor's merit was insufficiently substantial, but listed arguments that the Petitioner had made in support of the first prong.”
“the Director improperly relied upon an inference in reaching this conclusion.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“This statement improperly limits the factors considered to only one or two of those specifically listed in Dhanasar, in addition to foreclosing consideration of other factors not included in that inexhaustive list.”
“the Director again relied upon his incorrect assertion that the Petitioner states that he has retired in evaluating whether he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not provide an analysis of the substantiality of the merit of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“has gone on record that he has been retired since 2016”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · 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
Unusual disposition: the AAO does not itself assess whether the petitioner met the Dhanasar prongs, but instead finds the Director misapplied the Dhanasar framework (imposing a higher merit standard, failing to explain the 'substantial' finding, and erroneously inferring retirement from Form G-325A) and remands for the Director to redo the analysis. No prong is found to have failed; the remand is based on adjudicative error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director misapplied Dhanasar by improperly narrowing 'substantial merit' factors, relying on an unsupported inference of retirement, and restricting prong-2 to qualifications alone; case remanded for correct legal analysis, not a merits ruling.
Define the specific endeavor early and comprehensively; adjudicators (and petitioners) must apply Dhanasar's full, non-exhaustive factor list rather than narrowing merit to economic impact or credentials alone.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness
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