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 software engineer with an associate degree, proposed to bring his company and management-system software—designed to connect insurers and customers through the vehicle repair process—to the United States.
Field: software engineering / vehicle repair shop management software · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew the Director's findings on two of six exceptional-ability criteria (license/certification and recognition/significant contributions) because the Director failed to analyze the underlying evidence, and noted the Director never addressed a third criterion (salary) at all; remanded for proper analysis rather than affirming failure.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director's mischaracterization of the Petitioner's endeavor as a corporate lawyer continued throughout the first prong analysis.”
“we conclude that the Director erred in identifying the proposed endeavor and did not consider the Petitioner's evidence as submitted in the record.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“the Director erroneously referred to the field of endeavor as "the airline industry," which is unrelated to the Petitioner's filing.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“the Director stated the law and the relevant considerations in performing the third prong's balancing analysis but did not sufficiently identify or discuss the evidence they weighed”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · credited
- awards · credited
- 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
AAO remanded largely due to the Director's factual errors: the Director's decision mischaracterized the Petitioner's endeavor as being a 'Corporate Lawyer Specialized in the Finance and Stock Market Regulations' and later referred to 'the airline industry,' both unrelated to the actual software-engineering/entrepreneurial endeavor at issue, rendering the decision insufficient for meaningful appellate review.
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
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director fundamentally misidentified the proposed endeavor (calling Petitioner a corporate lawyer in finance/airline industry) rendering the entire Dhanasar and exceptional-ability analysis unreviewable, requiring remand.
Ensure adjudicator's decision accurately reflects the endeavor and evidence as submitted; on appeal, highlight factual mischaracterizations to secure remand rather than arguing merits directly.
moderate
economic_growth_generic · other
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