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 self-employed business owner, proposes to promote real estate and economic development in the United States through new businesses and investments.
Field: real estate development, construction, and property management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS denied on threshold EB-2 grounds, finding insufficient evidence of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. The AAO found SCOPS' analysis incomplete because it applied only part of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), ignoring the 'other documentation' clause applicable to self-employed petitioners. The AAO withdrew the denial and remanded for full reconsideration of the threshold issue.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“SCOPS acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted support letters and evidence showing that he was founder and owner of a business, SCOPS deemed such evidence insufficient”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“SCOPS did not analyze the Petitioner's submission of 'other evidence' or explain why doing so was not necessary in this instance.”
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
The AAO remanded solely on threshold EB-2 grounds without reaching any Dhanasar prong analysis. The core procedural error was SCOPS applying only the first clause of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) — requiring employer/trainer letters — while ignoring the 'other documentation' clause that accommodates self-employed petitioners who cannot obtain such letters. The AAO instructed SCOPS to also conduct a full Dhanasar three-prong analysis on remand. The decision references SCOPS (Service Center Operations) rather than a named Director, which is slightly unusual in framing.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
SCOPS denial was procedurally deficient: it ignored the 'other documentation' clause of 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1) and never analyzed Petitioner's submitted evidence or applied the Dhanasar framework at all.
Ensure adjudicators fully address all regulatory alternatives (e.g., 'other evidence') for qualifying experience, and press for full Dhanasar analysis rather than accepting truncated denials.
vague
economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation
person_focused
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