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 civil engineer, sought to open and direct the operations of an information technology and gamification consulting firm in Florida.
Field: IT and gamification consulting (petitioner trained as civil engineer) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found petitioner did not qualify as exceptional ability despite meeting 4 of 6 evidentiary criteria; AAO withdrew this finding because the Director's final merits determination failed to analyze the totality of the evidence and did not explain the reasons for denial.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
- recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · ignored
- certification membership · credited
- degree · 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 procedural remand rather than a merits determination: the AAO did not affirm any prong failure but instead withdrew the Director's decision for failing to analyze the totality of the evidence and adequately explain the reasons for denial under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(i). The AAO specifically noted the Director erroneously conflated Dhanasar prong 2 factors (record of success, progress, customer interest) into the prong 1 national importance analysis, and mistakenly described the endeavor as 'founding and leading a company in accounting services' when the actual endeavor was an IT and gamification consulting company.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was conclusory, failed to consider totality of evidence, conflated prong-2 factors into prong-1 analysis, and mischaracterized the endeavor (calling it 'accounting services'), requiring remand for proper reasoned analysis.
Ensure adjudicator's denial explicitly engages with all submitted evidence and correctly identifies the endeavor; procedural deficiencies in agency reasoning can win a remand even without merits ruling.
moderate
stem_positive_factor · economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
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