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 business operations specialist, planned to establish a third-party market research firm in the U.S. specializing in flat panel display, semiconductor memory, and EV battery technologies, providing research and consulting services to U.S. and Korean companies.
Field: market research / business consulting (technology sectors: displays, semiconductors, EV batteries) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the Director erred in disregarding certain evidence submitted in response to the request for evidence (RFE) relevant to the national importance determinations”
“this evidence cannot be considered in support of the petition as they were not submitted at the time of filing, but at a later date”
“we conclude the evidence presented therein was provided to further document and explain how the Petitioner qualifies for a national interest waiver based on the nature of the proposed endeavor discussed in the initial filing”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · credited
“this evidence cannot be considered in support of the petition as they were not submitted at the time of filing, but at a later date”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · credited
- resume experience · ignored
- media · 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
The AAO's decision turns on a procedural/evidentiary error: the Director had rejected the Petitioner's RFE-response business plan and CEO letters as untimely under Matter of Katigbak because they were signed/dated after filing. The AAO held this was improper because the post-filing materials merely elaborated on plans and relationships that predated filing, and remanded for the Director to consider all evidence (initial, RFE response, and appeal brief) under all three Dhanasar prongs. No prong was actually found to fail; the AAO did not reach substantive analysis of prongs 2 and 3, instructing the Director to conduct that analysis in the first instance.
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. 103.3
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Katigbak
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director improperly disregarded post-filing business plan and CEO letters submitted in RFE response, treating them as new evidence under Katigbak rather than clarification of pre-filing plans; remand required for proper prong-1 analysis.
RFE-submitted documents (business plans, letters) that merely elaborate on plans stated at filing should be argued as clarifying, not new, evidence to avoid improper exclusion under Katigbak.
specific
critical_emerging_tech · us_competitiveness · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
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