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 medical practitioner with a background in public health, proposed to work on the prevention of maternal and infant micro and macro-nutrient deficiency through research.
Field: maternal and infant micro/macro-nutrient deficiency research (public health) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director never made a finding on EB-2 eligibility, and required transcript/credential evaluation documents were missing from the record; AAO remands for this to be addressed rather than finding failure itself.
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
“the Director referenced a business plan submitted by the Petitioner, although there is no business plan in the record.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“the Petitioner "submitted documentation of his professional memberships"... which does not appear to relate to the Petitioner's filing.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · ignored
- degree · ignored
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 decision does not reach any Dhanasar prong analysis on the merits; instead, the AAO remands because the Director's decision was internally incoherent, mischaracterized the record (confusing the Petitioner's endeavor with an unrelated transportation-safety endeavor, mixing masculine/feminine pronouns, referencing evidence such as a business plan and proof of income that were not in the record, and referencing a different petitioner's project-manager role), rendering the decision insufficient for review under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(i) and Matter of M-P-.
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
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was unreviewable: no EB-2 classification finding, analysis of an unrelated endeavor (transportation safety), and reliance on evidence/documents not in the record.
Ensure the adjudicator's decision accurately reflects the record; on appeal, highlight factual mismatches between the denial's reasoning and actual filed evidence to obtain remand.
moderate
public_health
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his