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, co-founder and COO/CTO of a technology company, sought to continue research, development, and commercialization of DOE-owned anti-reflective glass intellectual property for applications including autonomous vehicles, security cameras, and advanced optics.
Field: anti-reflective/climate technology commercialization (materials science/engineering) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional and AAO agreed; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“we conclude that the decision does not sufficiently analyze the record under Dhanasar 's first prong, and thus a remand of this matter is appropriate.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“because the decision primarily relies on SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not adequately detail his endeavor, a remand is appropriate”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“SCOPS primarily relies on its determination that the Petitioner did not provide a sufficient description of his endeavor... it did not discuss the evidence in the record or otherwise explain how they weighed the evidence”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- other · credited
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 remand decision: rather than finding the Petitioner failed any Dhanasar prong, the AAO held that SCOPS's denial failed to adequately explain its reasoning and ignored key evidence (including letters and RFE statements), citing Matter of M-P- for the requirement that decisions fully explain the reasons for denial. The AAO also cited Flores v. Garland (5th Cir.) regarding the discretionary nature of NIW adjudications, an unusual citation for this context.
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.
SCOPS failed to meaningfully engage with record evidence (endeavor statements, DOE licensing detail, third-party letters including national-security claims) across all three Dhanasar prongs, undermining the adequacy of its denial rationale.
Adjudicators and petitioners alike must expressly address all submitted evidence (especially third-party corroboration) prong-by-prong, in totality, not merely assert insufficient specificity.
moderate
critical_emerging_tech · national_security · stem_positive_factor · 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