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.
A UK-born founder of a U.S. company selling his former UK employer's supply-chain and logistics software sought to continue heading the company's U.S. operations, using his software and supply-chain expertise to serve major U.S. manufacturers and secure critical infrastructure sectors.
Field: supply chain / logistics software (process execution technology) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO reversed the Director, finding the Beneficiary met three of six exceptional-ability evidentiary standards (10 years' experience, an official academic certificate, and remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability); remanded for the Director to conduct a final merits determination.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- other · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“this evidence does not demonstrate the beneficiary's work ... constitutes a record of success or progress”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
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
Unusual disposition: rather than affirming or reversing the Dhanasar prongs, the AAO criticized the Director's national-interest analysis as based on a mischaracterization of the petitioner's argument (p1), unclear/unexplained reasoning (p2), and conclusory, evidence-free statements (p3) under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(i)'s explanation requirement, and remanded without itself resolving any of the three prongs. The case involves the exceptional-ability track rather than an advanced degree, and the AAO relied on its own adopted decision, Matter of O-A-, Inc., to define 'official academic record.'
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO found Director wrongly rejected 2 of 3 exceptional-ability evidentiary standards (certificate, remuneration) and mischaracterized/failed to explain the national-interest analysis, requiring remand for proper final merits and Dhanasar review.
Ensure denial notices accurately state petitioner's actual claims and complete required final merits/three-prong analysis; petitioners should preserve comparable-evidence submissions timely to survive RFE gaps.
moderate
economic_job_creation · national_security · us_competitiveness
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