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 Beneficiary proposed to continue her employment as a project engineer, performing architectural design and execution of complex infrastructure and construction projects intended to support U.S. public transportation modernization, roadway networks, affordable housing, and healthcare facilities.
Field: architecture and construction (project engineering) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that the Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a bachelor's equivalent degree and over five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director reached this conclusion based on several misrepresentations of the record and her determination will be withdrawn.”
“The Director's reference to support letters that the Petitioner did not submit and her misidentification of the Beneficiary's field indicate that the Director's conclusion was not based on the record in this case.”
“At several places in her decision, the Director refers to the Beneficiary as a man although the Beneficiary is a woman.”
“Accordingly, the Director's determination that the Beneficiary does not meet the first Dhanasar prong will be withdrawn.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · credited
- resume experience · credited
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
The AAO withdrew the Director's denial not on substantive Dhanasar merits but because the decision contained factual errors unsupported by the record: it referenced support letters never submitted, misidentified the Beneficiary's field as 'engineer' rather than architecture/construction, mischaracterized a petitioner's evidentiary letter as attorney argument, and repeatedly misgendered the Beneficiary (referring to her as a man). The AAO cited 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(i) and an immigration-judge analogy (Matter of M-P-) to hold the Director failed to provide a sufficient explanation for denial or a basis for meaningful appellate review, and remanded for a complete three-prong analysis since the Director never reached prongs two and three.
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
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's denial rested on demonstrable factual errors—misquoted letters not in the record, misidentifying the Beneficiary's gender and field—rendering the decision unreviewable and requiring remand rather than a substantive merits ruling.
On appeal, scrutinize the denial for factual/record errors; procedural defects in the adjudicator's reasoning can compel remand even without a strong prong-1 showing.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · public_health
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod