NIW Bearings
remandedJUN252024_08B52032024-06-25 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 sought to provide financial and investment analysis and consulting services through his own company operating in Florida.

Field: financial and investment analysis/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO found the Petitioner met the advanced degree requirement via a foreign bachelor's equivalent plus more than five years of progressive experience; withdrew the Director's contrary finding, including rejecting reliance on strict compliance with 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1) where secondary evidence was credibly explained.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“did not provide a detailed description of the proposed endeavor.”
“the Director did not discuss most of the evidence submitted to demonstrate the national importance of the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“that he has influenced the field beyond the normal expectations of a financial and investment analyst and consultant.”
“the record lacks comparative evidence showing the follows or posts of other business consultants who are of exceptional ability in the [Petitioner's] field.”
“explain how [the Petitioner's] numerous personal accomplishments constitute recognition of achievements and significant contributions to the field of business.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

“the Director stated the law and the relevant considerations in performing the third prong's balancing analysis but did not discuss the evidence weighed”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · ignored
    “did not provide a detailed description of the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “did not explain how numerous personal accomplishments constitute recognition of achievements and significant contributions to the field.”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the record lacks comparative evidence showing the follows or posts of other business consultants who are of exceptional ability”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · credited
  • 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 remanded not because the Petitioner failed the Dhanasar prongs but because the Director's denial was conclusory, misapplied exceptional-ability criteria (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F)) under prong 2, imposed an improper 'national importance'/comparative-influence standard on social media evidence, and failed to engage with most submitted evidence across all three prongs. AAO also reversed the Director's threshold EB-2 denial, crediting secondary evidence of work experience.

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(g)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The Director's decision was conclusory, ignored most submitted evidence (business plan, expert letters, economic-impact evidence), and misapplied exceptional-ability criteria to prong 2, precluding meaningful appellate review.

Transferable lesson

On appeal, highlight where an adjudicator ignores submitted evidence or imports irrelevant exceptional-ability standards into Dhanasar's prongs—this can compel remand even without resolving merits.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer