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 chaplain with over 10 years of ministry experience, proposed to provide spiritual care and health-related support by partnering with the U.S. healthcare system and/or military as a chaplain.
Field: chaplaincy / spiritual care · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director never made an initial determination on advanced-degree professional eligibility and, despite finding the Petitioner met all six exceptional-ability criteria, failed to conduct or discuss a final merits determination. AAO remanded for the Director to make this threshold determination.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · ignored
- recommendation letter · ignored
“USCIS cannot conclude his professional activities reflect a level of interest in his work from relevant parties sufficient to meet Dhanasar's second prong.”
AAO decision text - citations publications · ignored
- certification membership · ignored
- resume experience · ignored
All 6 evidence items
- funding · 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 is a procedural remand: the AAO withdrew the Director's denial not because the petitioner failed to meet the prongs, but because the Director's decision recited the legal factors without applying them to the record evidence, never made a threshold EB-2 classification determination, and even mischaracterized the Petitioner's occupation as 'Airline Pilot' in the exceptional-ability discussion. The AAO expressly declined to reach the merits of any prong, remanding for a new, adequately explained decision.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director failed to make threshold classification finding and gave boilerplate, unexplained denials on all three Dhanasar prongs without analyzing submitted evidence, violating 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(i).
Procedural remands turn on adjudicator's failure to explain reasoning, not on petitioner's evidentiary strength; substantive NIW merits remain undecided and must be re-argued on remand.
moderate
public_health · government_interest · other
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp