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 sought to attract more American students to STEM fields and bridge the gender gap in those fields through a nonprofit organization he established in Texas, which would conduct research, monitoring, conferences, and coaching/tutoring programs.
Field: human capital formation / STEM education (nonprofit work) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed the Petitioner's foreign doctoral degree satisfied the advanced degree requirement under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2); this was not contested.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the evidence in response to the NOIR ... did not establish that was functioning as claimed at the time of filing the petition”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
- resume experience · discounted
“USCIS and the Department of State were not able to verif[y] any of the work experience claimed by the beneficiary”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“arguments on motion are immaterial and do not change the outcome of the prior decision”
AAO decision text
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 revocation (not initial denial) case: the Director revoked a previously approved I-140 after a NOIR based on a DOS investigation that could not verify the Petitioner's nonprofit or past work experience. AAO remanded not on the merits of the Dhanasar prongs but because the Director's NOIR and revocation notice failed to specifically explain the grounds for revocation, did not address rebuttal evidence, and did not conduct a full three-prong Dhanasar analysis as required by 8 C.F.R. 205.2(c). A footnote notes the Petitioner filed two other petitions on the same endeavor, one of which AAO separately dismissed for failing prong 1.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's NOIR and revocation failed to specify which organizations/work experience were unverified and did not explain how that unverified history defeated any Dhanasar prong, violating 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c) notice requirements.
In revocation proceedings, insist USCIS identify specific deficient facts and tie them explicitly to each Dhanasar prong; procedural vagueness in a NOIR is independently reversible.
moderate
stem_positive_factor · 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