remandedNOV252020_01B52032020-11-25 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center

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, founder and CEO of a Jiu-Jitsu apparel company, sought to develop and commercialize his own proprietary apparel brand, including establishing a U.S. manufacturing facility and participating in community-focused Jiu-Jitsu social programs.

Field: martial arts apparel / Jiu-Jitsu apparel manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director's decision did not analyze the Petitioner's bachelor's degree or subsequent experience to determine whether he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; AAO remanded for this determination.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“The Director's decision concluded that the Petitioner has met Dhanasar' s first prong, but did not identify the evidence upon which this determination was based.”

“the Director should consider whether the record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its operations to impact the martial arts apparel industry or sport of Jiu-Jitsu more broadly”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“it did not include a proper analysis of the content of the letters or a sufficient discussion of the other evidence presented under this prong of the Dhanasar framework”

“The record, however, includes letters from the Petitioner's business partners. customers. and potential investors that render the Director's finding erroneous.”

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

“the Director's decision improperly concluded that because the Petitioner had not satisfied the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, he therefore did not meet prong three”

“Without a proper evaluation of the evidence in accordance with the factors identified in the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Director's determination regarding prong three was in error.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · credited
business plan · credited
funding · credited
contract revenue · credited
media · credited

All 6 evidence items

degree · ignored

Where this case turned

Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

117coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This is an unusual remand in which the AAO faults the Director's own decision for multiple errors, including failing to analyze the threshold advanced-degree issue, mischaracterizing the Petitioner's gender throughout the decision, incorrectly stating no investor/customer interest was shown despite contrary record evidence, and improperly treating prong three as automatically failing if prong two failed. The AAO orders that any new adverse decision be certified to it for review.

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)
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Director's decision was procedurally deficient: no analysis of advanced-degree evidence, no identified basis for the prong-1 finding, inadequate review of prong-2 letters, and improper conflation of prong-2 failure with prong-3 denial.

Transferable lesson

Petitioners should tie business growth claims explicitly to industry-wide or national-level impact, not just company revenue/jobs, to survive prong-1 scrutiny on remand.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · public_health · other

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer