NIW Bearings
remandedJUN042025_01B52032025-06-04 · 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 decision does not describe the specific nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, focusing instead on procedural deficiencies in SCOPS' denial.

Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS had already concluded the Petitioner established he was an advanced degree professional; this was not contested.

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 decision does not substantively analyze the Dhanasar prongs on the merits; instead, the AAO found SCOPS' denial itself deficient due to internal contradictions between the RFE (which found all three Dhanasar prongs met) and the final decision (which found prongs one and three not met), and remanded for a new decision. The AAO expressly declined to opine on the ultimate merits of the case.

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
  • Flores v. Garland

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

SCOPS's RFE found all three Dhanasar prongs met, but the final denial contradicted this on prongs 1 and 3 without reasoned explanation, precluding meaningful review or rebuttal.

Transferable lesson

If an agency's RFE concedes a prong, a later denial reversing that finding without clear, reasoned explanation is procedurally vulnerable and may warrant remand regardless of merits.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles