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 Brazilian-trained electrical engineer, proposed to work in the United States as an electrical engineer and entrepreneur, drawing on his experience with electrical projects and a Brazilian senior living business venture.
Field: electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional, holding that recommendation letters and corporate/financial documents did not establish five years of progressive experience with specific dates and job duties.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not specify the dates of the Petitioner's work experience and his specific job duties”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“do not show the Petitioner's job duties for these businesses and the specific dates he worked in his specialty”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
- recommendation letter · 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
Unusual remand posture: rather than affirming or reversing the denial on the merits, the AAO withdrew the Director's decision on all points—including reversing the Director's favorable threshold finding—because the Director's decision failed to adequately explain its reasoning and apply the facts to the legal standards, particularly on prongs one through three of Dhanasar. The AAO expressly declines to reach any merits determination on the three Dhanasar prongs, remanding for a fully reasoned decision.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Director's decision failed to analyze case-specific facts under any Dhanasar prong (merely recited legal standards) and did not establish the advanced-degree predicate, requiring remand for a reasoned decision.
Ensure adjudicators (and petitioners in rebuttal) tie evidence explicitly to each Dhanasar prong's legal standard with fact-specific analysis, not boilerplate recitation, to survive appellate review.
vague
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