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 proposed an endeavor of unknown specific nature, supported by reports, articles, and letters including a U.S. Department of Energy report, seeking a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement under EB-2 classification.
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner demonstrated eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not at issue on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“While the record may demonstrate the substantial merit portion of the first Dhanasar prong, SCOPS should discuss the evidence and determine whether the record establishes the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required and provide a sufficient explanation for the conclusion.”
“the Petitioner submitted reports, articles, and letters of support but the Petitioner did not provide complete copies.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“SCOPS concluded that while the record shows the Petitioner 'has relevant education and skills,' it did not demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.”
“the decision did not sufficiently describe the evidence reviewed or provide a meaningful explanation of its shortcomings.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“it does not sufficiently discuss the evidence weighed in balancing those considerations nor address the Petitioner's specific claims, if any, as to the third prong.”
“Without a proper evaluation of the factors identified in Dhanasar's third prong, we cannot meaningfully analyze whether SCOPS' determination for this prong was in error.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“SCOPS did not 'grapple with the substance' of any of the support letters or provide a proper analysis of the content of the letters.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the report from the U.S. Department of Energy includes only the introduction page.”
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
This is a pure procedural remand: the AAO did not reach the merits of any Dhanasar prong but instead withdrew SCOPS' decision for failure to adequately explain its reasoning, citing 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i) and Matter of M-P-. The AAO expressly noted the Petitioner 'may not have established' NIW eligibility, signaling no prejudgment on the merits. SCOPS had found EB-2 threshold met and Prong 1 (substantial merit) likely met, but denied on Prongs 2 and 3 without sufficient analysis. The incomplete evidentiary record (e.g., only the introduction page of a DOE report) was flagged as a separate issue for SCOPS to address on remand.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
SCOPS's denial was procedurally inadequate: it failed to discuss evidence or explain its reasoning on prongs 1-3, precluding meaningful appellate review, requiring remand.
Even if the underlying merits are weak, ensure the denial itself is reasoned; petitioners can win remand by showing the agency's explanation was conclusory rather than substantive.
vague
other
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp