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 UK-trained lawyer, proposed to establish and lead his own corporate transaction legal and consulting business, acting as a venture capital legal advisor and investment consultant helping marginalized businesses and diverse entrepreneurs access equity and capital-market financing.
Field: corporate/venture capital law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based solely on foreign academic credentials, but AAO found the record insufficient: EDGE indicated his UK bachelor of law equates only to a U.S. bachelor's (not above), his postgraduate diploma corresponds to only one year (not a full master's), and the record lacked adequate documentation of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The decision, however, only indicates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a corporate lawyer in corporate law without discussing his establishment of a business and the facts of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor.”
“On remand, SCOPS should analyze the evidence to determine whether the record sufficiently describes the proposed endeavor, and whether the endeavor has substantial merit and is of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the academic evaluation contradicts the educational credentials for United Kingdom in EDGE for a bachelor's degree in law and a postgraduate diploma”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not adequately document that he has five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the same specialty”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“the decision... only indicates that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to work as a corporate lawyer... without discussing his establishment of a business”
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 not because the petitioner failed the Dhanasar prongs on the merits, but because SCOPS' denial recited legal standards without discussing the record evidence at all, precluding meaningful appellate review; AAO also independently withdrew SCOPS' favorable threshold advanced-degree finding based on EDGE credential equivalency data contradicting the petitioner's academic evaluation.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
SCOPS mischaracterized the proposed endeavor and issued boilerplate legal recitations without discussing record evidence, precluding meaningful review; AAO remanded for a properly reasoned decision.
Ensure the endeavor is described consistently and specifically throughout filings; agencies must tie evidence to each Dhanasar prong or remand is likely regardless of merits.
moderate
economic_growth_generic
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