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 systems developer, proposed to work as an information technology professional in the United States, claiming her endeavor would produce substantial positive economic effects with national or global implications.
Field: information technology / systems development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; not contested on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“We agree with the Petitioner that the decision did not contain a proper analysis of the proposed endeavor's substantial merit or a sufficient discussion explaining why she had not satisfied this requirement.”
“Aside from stating, "It appears that the [P]etitioner will work as an Information Technology professional," there is no specific discussion of the proposed endeavor or explanation for the Director's conclusion that the proposed endeavor does not have national importance.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director did not adequately discuss the evidence and sufficiently explain the basis for this determination.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not exempt the [P]etitioner from establishing eligibility with independent, documentary evidence.”
AAO decision text - 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
The AAO did not resolve the merits of any Dhanasar prong; instead it withdrew the Director's decision because the denial's language on substantial merit and national importance was copied almost verbatim from the RFE and failed to address RFE-response evidence (a professional plan and 17-page statement), remanding for a properly explained decision as required by Matter of M-P-.
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
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's denial merely copied RFE language verbatim, failed to analyze submitted evidence (professional plan, 17-page statement) on prongs 1 and 3, and gave no reasoned explanation, violating 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i).
This is a procedural remand for inadequate agency explanation, not a merits ruling; petitioners should note USCIS must specifically address submitted RFE evidence, not just recite boilerplate.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod