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 customs and trade specialist, proposed to form and operate a U.S. consultancy company offering customs and trade advisory services to help client companies improve efficiency, productivity, and profitability.
Field: customs and trade consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Director erroneously credited a nonexistent bachelor's degree and that the Petitioner failed to show her foreign degrees were equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree or that she had five years of progressive post-degree experience.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“she did not provide evidence showing either her master degree or bachelor degree is the foreign equivalent above that of a U.S. bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter is insufficient to show she has five years of progressive experience”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“The decision does not identify or analyze the Petitioner's submitted evidence and does not explain the basis for this determination.”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“The decision does not identify or analyze the Petitioner's submitted evidence and does not explain the basis for this determination.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · 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
AAO remanded largely due to Director's factual error—crediting a nonexistent 'bachelor of science in industrial engineering' degree not present in the record—and due to the Director's conclusory, unexplained findings on all three Dhanasar prongs, which prevented meaningful appellate review. AAO expressly declined to opine on the ultimate outcome.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- Visinscaia v. Beers
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was procedurally deficient—conclusory, unexplained findings on underlying classification and all three Dhanasar prongs prevented meaningful appellate review, requiring remand rather than merits resolution.
Ensure adjudicators (and petitioners) build a fully reasoned record on each prong; unexplained conclusions on eligibility or Dhanasar prongs invite remand regardless of ultimate merits.
vague
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