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 operated (and planned to continue operating) a New York-based business consulting company providing services to high-net-worth individuals and Central Asian companies seeking opportunities in the U.S. market.
Field: business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and AAO affirmed, that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · ignored
- recommendation letter · ignored
- awards · ignored
- media · ignored
- resume experience · ignored
All 6 evidence items
- other · 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
This is a procedural remand for inadequate explanation rather than a merits ruling; AAO expressly declined to opine on the ultimate outcome. AAO sharply criticized the Director for applying heightened, out-of-scope standards under prong two (e.g., requiring 'significant contribution,' 'impetus for progress,' 'substantial positive discourse') and for questioning the endeavor's necessity in the U.S. and the Petitioner's ownership/credibility based on issues not raised in the RFE.
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
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was procedurally deficient: boilerplate, conclusory findings, misapplied heightened standards, and failure to engage with submitted evidence across all three Dhanasar prongs, precluding meaningful review.
Ensure adjudicators (and appellate reviewers) engage substantively with submitted business plans and evidence; procedural inadequacy in denial can independently justify remand regardless of underlying merits.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · government_interest
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