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 proposed to found and lead an educational consulting company providing online counseling and academic support to help international students gain admission to U.S. higher education institutions.
Field: international educational consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director's decision concluded that "substantial merit and national importance is met." However, the decision does not sufficiently explain the basis for this determination.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“It is unclear from the evidence submitted with the appeal whether the Petitioner has changed her proposed endeavor.”
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
“However, the decision did not sufficiently explain the basis for the determination.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“However, the Director did not discuss the evidence weighed in balancing those considerations or address the Petitioner's specific claims, if any, as to the third prong.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“It is unclear from the evidence submitted with the appeal whether the Petitioner has changed her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- certification membership · credited
- degree · credited
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Notable
The AAO did not affirm any prong failure; it remanded because the Director's decision was conclusory across all three Dhanasar prongs and failed to explain the evidentiary basis for its findings, citing Matter of M-P- on the duty to fully explain denials. The AAO also flagged a possible impermissible material change to the proposed endeavor based on new business-plan evidence submitted on appeal (citing Katigbak and Izummi), leaving that issue for the Director to resolve on remand.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's denial was procedurally deficient: it failed to explain reasoning for prongs one, two, and three, did not analyze submitted evidence, and misidentified the record, precluding meaningful appellate review.
Adjudicators must explain evidentiary bases prong-by-prong; petitioners should ensure business plans and prong-two evidence are clearly tied to the same endeavor to avoid remand for inadequate analysis.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
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