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 financial manager with a master's in corporate finance, proposed to establish his own financial management consulting business in Texas.
Field: financial management / corporate finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO affirmed the Director's finding that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree based on his Brazilian master's in corporate finance.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director's discussion of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework...consists primarily of boilerplate language and a conclusory finding”
“It does not include, for example, any discussion or analysis of the Petitioner's business plan or its contents”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director did not discuss the evidence that he weighed in balancing those considerations nor address the Petitioner's specific claims”
“the decision's discussion of the third prong includes a statement that the Petitioner did not establish that he 'is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.' This statement directly contradicts the Director's separate determination”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · 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
Unusual procedural remand: AAO found the Director's decision itself inadequate for review, citing factual errors (wrong RFE date, mischaracterized endeavor), boilerplate reasoning, an unsupported implication of an impermissible material change under Katigbak/Izummi, and an internal contradiction between findings on prong 2 and prong 3. AAO did not reach the merits of any prong.
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)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was factually erroneous (wrong endeavor description, wrong RFE date), internally contradictory, and lacked evidentiary analysis, making it unreviewable; AAO remanded rather than ruling on merits.
Ensure adjudicator decisions engage with actual record evidence; petitioners should highlight factual errors and boilerplate reasoning to secure remand rather than outright dismissal.
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