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 serve as CEO of a new company that would offer retail sales training courses to other companies, with a business plan indicating he intended to hire four employees.
Field: retail sales training / marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner's post-baccalaureate work experience (approximately 3 years, 8 months) fell short of the 5 years of progressive experience required to equate to a master's degree, and thus he did not qualify as an advanced degree professional. The Director had not addressed exceptional ability eligibility, which AAO remanded for consideration.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the Director made no determination of the endeavor's substantial merit”
“the decision lacks any explanation of what content in this letter led to that conclusion”
“we look for broader implications of the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake, not the potential prospective impact of the entire field or industry”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“their analysis included factual errors and instances where the incorrect legal standards and requirements were applied”
“The phrase "contributions of major significance" is also later used in the Director's second prong analysis”
“the decision makes references to the Petitioner's "findings," and whether the "information technology community" is applying those findings”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director should consider and evaluate the Petitioner's claims regarding this prong, including those made on appeal”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the decision lacks any explanation of what content in this letter led to that conclusion”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they do not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- 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
Unusual remand posture: rather than affirming or reversing the Director's NIW denial, AAO withdrew the decision because the Director's analysis contained factual errors and applied the wrong legal standard (extraordinary-ability 'contributions of major significance' language, and references to 'findings' and the 'information technology community' inapplicable to this entrepreneur). AAO itself found the Petitioner ineligible as an advanced degree professional based on insufficient post-degree experience, but remanded for the Director to evaluate exceptional-ability eligibility (never previously addressed) and to properly analyze all three Dhanasar prongs from scratch.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO withdrew the denial because the Director failed to articulate reasoned analysis under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(i) for both EB-2 classification (ignored exceptional-ability claim, miscounted work experience) and all three Dhanasar prongs, applying wrong legal standards (extraordinary-ability language, unrelated field comparisons).
Petitioners should clearly separate prong-1 endeavor/impact evidence from prong-2 personal-qualification evidence and explicitly quantify scale of economic/employment impact, not just note a business plan exists.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic
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