remandedJUN262025_07B52032025-06-26 · 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 Petitioner, a computer and information systems manager, sought classification as an alien of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver, though the specific proposed endeavor was not reached in this decision.

Field: computer and information systems management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS' denial was internally contradictory: it found the Petitioner satisfied three of six exceptional-ability criteria (degree, license/certification, membership) but then stated the Petitioner had not met at least three criteria and declined to conduct a final merits determination. AAO remanded for a new decision rather than affirming a threshold failure.

How the evidence was treated

certification membership · discounted
“It is not evident that the submitted certificates amount to certification for a particular profession or occupation, rather than completion of training courses for specific skills.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“SCOPS cited information obtained from a web search.”
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

AAO remanded due to SCOPS' internally contradictory exceptional-ability determination (finding 3 criteria met while simultaneously stating fewer than 3 were met) and criticized SCOPS for relying on outside-record web-search information regarding salary without issuing a NOID as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8) and (16)(ii). The NIW/Dhanasar prongs were never reached; AAO instructed SCOPS to address them only if exceptional ability is ultimately established.

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. 103.2(b)(8)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Flores v. Garland
Kazarian v. USCIS
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

SCOPS issued internally contradictory findings (finding 3 criteria met yet denying for failing to meet 3 criteria) without RFE/NOID, and relied on outside web evidence without disclosure, requiring remand.

Transferable lesson

Ensure USCIS decisions are internally consistent and evidence-based before appeal; procedural errors like undisclosed extra-record evidence or contradictory criterion findings can yield remand regardless of merits.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer