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 businessman and nonprofit organization leader, proposed an undertaking he described only in general terms as leading to 'cultural development and economic improvement' and improving quality of life in the United States.
Field: nonprofit/community leadership and cultural-economic development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not submit an official academic record from his Korean university or a credentials evaluation showing his degree was a U.S. equivalent, nor an accredited academic record for his 'Doctor of Christian Counseling' certificate; the Director's finding that he did not qualify as an advanced degree professional was upheld. The Director never addressed the alternative exceptional-ability claim, and AAO remanded for that determination to be made.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“The above description lacks specific, detailed information regarding the Petitioner's proposed work in the United States.”
“Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently clarified his proposed endeavor, we withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner meets Dhanasar's first prong.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“these prior activities are considerations under Dhanasar's second prong, which shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
Unusual posture: AAO affirmatively withdrew the Director's prior (favorable) finding that the petitioner met Dhanasar prong one, on the ground that the endeavor was too vague to evaluate, rather than simply declining to reach it. The case was remanded both for the Director to address the never-considered exceptional-ability claim and to re-apply the Dhanasar framework once the endeavor is clarified.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to identify a specific proposed endeavor; vague references to 'cultural and economic improvement' precluded any national importance or positioning analysis, requiring remand for clarification.
Define the proposed endeavor with concrete detail (activities, capacity, employer communications) before arguing national importance; vague aspirational language cannot satisfy Dhanasar prong one.
vague
economic_growth_generic · other
person_focused
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