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 continue working as a financial and investment advisor for his current employer, focusing on serving wealthy individuals from Latin America seeking to invest in the United States.
Field: wealth and financial management / investment advisory · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a combination of a partial foreign diploma plus work experience; the AAO withdrew this finding, holding that an advanced-degree equivalency must rest on a single bachelor's degree without substituting experience for education, and remanded for the Director to instead evaluate exceptional-ability eligibility.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record therefore does not establish the Petitioner's qualification as an advanced degree professional”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“an advanced degree equivalency must include a single bachelor's degree, without substituting experience for education or combining lesser educational credentials”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“she did not analyze the evidence in light of those factors, but provided only conclusory statements”
AAO decision text - media · credited
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
The remand is unusual in that the AAO faults the Director's decision for lacking any substantive analysis under the Dhanasar three-prong framework at all, rather than finding any prong factually unmet; the AAO itself credits substantial merit but withholds judgment on national importance, positioning, and balance, instructing the Director to conduct a proper analysis on remand, including possibly re-evaluating eligibility under the exceptional-ability track rather than the advanced-degree track.
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)
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision lacked any Dhanasar analysis or explanation for conclusions on EB-2 classification and NIW prongs, precluding meaningful appellate review; case remanded for reasoned decision.
Ensure adjudicator (and petitioner's evidence) explicitly ties specific endeavor to concrete, scaled national impact—not just field importance or credentials—and document reasoning fully.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
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