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 owner/senior manager of a Florida supermarket company, continuing to operate its existing supermarket while expanding into supply chain consulting services for the supermarket and retail sector.
Field: supermarket industry / supply chain consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the record supports, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the decision did not meaningfully address the plan's description of his proposed endeavor and its national importance”
“the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not satisfy the first prong was conclusory”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The Director appears to have applied heightened standards that are outside the scope of the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
“the Director overlooked or was dismissive of evidence relevant to the second prong analysis”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director did not sufficiently identify or discuss the evidence they weighed in balancing those considerations”
“It is unclear which evidence led the Director to that conclusion.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“could not be verified for accuracy”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- awards · ignored
- media · ignored
- resume experience · 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 rare remand decision: the AAO did not find any Dhanasar prong unmet on the merits but instead withdrew the Director's denial because it contained factual errors, conclusory findings, and an unsupported conclusion that the Petitioner had 'no proposed endeavor,' rendering the decision insufficient for appellate review. The AAO expressly declined to opine on the ultimate merits.
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 legally deficient: conclusory 'no proposed endeavor' finding contradicted own merit finding and record, precluding proper Dhanasar analysis, requiring remand for adequate explanation.
Ensure adjudicator's denial actually engages record evidence; procedural remands turn on inadequate agency explanation, not necessarily petitioner's substantive showing.
moderate
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · 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