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 formed a U.S. company to sell and distribute ecological, biodegradable products made from recyclable materials, with a five-year plan to open six retail stores in Florida and sell online through an e-commerce specialist.
Field: retail sale of ecological, biodegradable, and recyclable products · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director did not address EB-2 threshold eligibility at all; AAO notes the record appears sufficient to show advanced-degree professional status but directs the Director to examine this on remand.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“we conclude that the record contains sufficient documentation establishing that the Petitioner adequately described his endeavor”
“the evidence of record does not appear to demonstrate that the Petitioner met the requirements of the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“it does not adequately establish that his company would result in national implications for the environment or the U.S. economy”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“fall short of demonstrating national importance”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“articles about the industry" and information about trade fairs is not relevant in this case”
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
AAO withdraws the Director's denial primarily for procedural inadequacy—finding the Director mischaracterized the endeavor and failed to analyze the business plan and other evidence—rather than affirming a substantive Dhanasar failure. It remands with an ambivalent closing statement that the record 'does not appear to demonstrate' the Dhanasar elements, without specifying which prong or why, leaving the ultimate merits determination to the Director on remand.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director mischaracterized and inadequately analyzed the endeavor and supporting evidence (business plan, statements), warranting remand rather than outright denial or approval.
Even with a concrete endeavor description, petitioners must affirmatively quantify how projected scale (revenue, hires, environmental effect) translates into nationally significant impact, not just describe plans.
specific
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
endeavor_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