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 mechanical engineer, proposed to work as a Senior Mechanical Engineer for a Florida-based engineering consulting company, advising clients in processing industries and managing the company's mechanical engineering projects.
Field: mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director's decision did not analyze the Petitioner's mechanical engineering degree or his post-baccalaureate experience to determine whether he qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; AAO remands for this determination to be made.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
How the evidence was treated
- degree · ignored
“did not analyze the Petitioner's mechancial engineering degree...or his subsequent experience...to make a finding”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“it did not include a proper analysis of the content of the letters or a sufficient discussion of the evidence presented”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“it did not include a proper analysis of the content of the letters or a sufficient discussion of the evidence presented”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“it did not include a proper analysis of the content of the letters or a sufficient discussion of the evidence presented”
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
This is a remand decision in which the AAO found that the Director failed to analyze the threshold advanced-degree eligibility and improperly conflated prong three with prong two ('the Director's decision improperly concluded that because the Petitioner had not satisfied the second prong...he therefore did not meet prong three'). The AAO does not itself resolve the merits of any prong but instructs the Director to properly apply the full Dhanasar framework on remand, including a footnote directing consideration of whether the endeavor's impact extends beyond the company's own clients to the broader industry.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director failed to analyze any of the three Dhanasar prongs properly, including never determining if the endeavor's impact rose to national importance beyond the company's clients; remand ordered for proper analysis.
Adjudicators must apply each Dhanasar prong explicitly; petitioners should proactively show impact extends beyond immediate employer/clients to the broader industry or economy.
moderate
economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · 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