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 Brazilian entrepreneur in the medical device industry, sought to continue working in the U.S. providing sterilization and cleaning services for medical equipment, and later claimed to have founded a company developing medical equipment hardware, AI-based maintenance software, and data analytics for healthcare research.
Field: medical device industry (sterilization/cleaning of medical equipment; later healthcare/biotech hardware and software) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director never determined whether the Petitioner's occupation as an entrepreneur qualifies as a member of the professions, whether his 'Titulo de Bacharel' degree is a foreign equivalent baccalaureate plus five years of progressive experience, or whether he met three of six exceptional-ability criteria and the final merits determination; AAO remanded for these determinations rather than finding failure.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“As the Petitioner's founding, organization, and registration of...materialized after the filing of the petition...it does not assist him in establishing that he meets the requirements set forth in the Dhanasar framework.”
“The decision, however, did not contain a proper analysis of the Petitioner's evidence or a sufficient discussion explaining why the Petitioner had not demonstrated eligibility at the time of filing.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“However, the decision did not identify the evidence and sufficiently explain the basis for this determination.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“The Director's decision, however, did not adequately address the Petitioner's arguments and evidence submitted at time of initial filing and in response to the RFE.”
“Without a proper evaluation of the factors identified in Dhanasar's third prong, the Director's determination for this prong was in error.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“materialized after the filing of the petition, and therefore would not establish his eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
- 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
Unusual remand: rather than affirming any prong failure, the AAO faulted the Director for issuing a conclusory denial that failed to analyze the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree/exceptional ability) or properly explain findings on all three Dhanasar prongs, including a bare assertion that prong two was met without explanation. The AAO separately noted, without resolving eligibility, that the Petitioner's company was formed and registered after the filing date and thus could not establish eligibility at time of filing under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's denial lacked adequate explanation and improperly relied on post-filing company formation to assess eligibility, requiring remand for proper time-of-filing analysis under all three Dhanasar prongs.
Establish and document the proposed endeavor's specifics and national importance as of the filing date; avoid relying on post-filing developments to cure evidentiary gaps.
vague
economic_growth_generic · public_health
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