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, an EDI (electronic data interchange) specialist, proposed to operate his own consulting LLC providing financial and technology consulting services to help small and medium-sized U.S. businesses adopt EDI standards and improve their processes.
Field: business/IT consulting (electronic data interchange - EDI) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced-degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these striking similarities raise unanswered concerns regarding the credibility and probative value of these letters”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner did not provide a detailed description explaining how he will offer EDI-related services through E-, supported by documentary evidence”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through his employment relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“he does not explain how the provision of his services through E- will broadly impact the EDI-related field of endeavor in the U.S.”
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
Unusual procedural posture: rather than affirming or reversing, the AAO withdrew the Director's denial and remanded because the Director's reasoning conflated the Dhanasar prongs and contained conflicting statements about national importance. The AAO rejected the Petitioner's due-process argument that the RFE failed to preview all denial grounds, citing 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8). The AAO flagged near-identical boilerplate language across three reference letters as raising credibility concerns, citing federal case law analogues (Surinder Singh, Mei Chai Ye) outside the usual immigration precedent set. The AAO substantively critiqued prong 1 evidence (conclusory letters, undeveloped business plan) but explicitly left prongs 2 and 3 for the Director to analyze in the first instance on remand, so no prong was marked as failed or dispositive by the AAO itself.
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)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's reasoning conflated prongs 1 and 2 and gave conflicting national-importance findings; AAO remanded for a clear, separately-analyzed decision rather than ruling on the merits itself.
Submit a concrete business plan and letters that analyze the endeavor's prospective national-scale impact, not templated praise of the petitioner's personal skills.
vague
economic_growth_generic · economic_job_creation · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution