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 associate professor/researcher, sought to advance research in educational administration and policy, specifically examining the relationship between teacher performance and student success.
Field: educational administration and policy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and this was not disputed on appeal, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“The Director's decision did not meaningfully analyze the proposed endeavor's national importance or adequately discuss the Petitioner's evidence.”
“Because it contains two sections that each separately analyze the "national importance" component of Dhanasar 's first prong ... the decision's overall structure is confusing and difficult to follow.”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The Director first notified the Petitioner in the request for additional evidence (RFE) that they had concluded the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, only to retract that finding in the final decision, thereby denying the Petitioner a chance to cure the record.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“The portion of the Director's decision analyzing Dhanasar's third prong-the so-called "balancing test"-contains no meaningful analysis for us to review.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- citations publications · 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 procedural posture: the AAO did not evaluate the sufficiency of the petitioner's evidence on any prong but instead withdrew and remanded solely because the Director's decision was internally confusing (duplicative national-importance discussions, an RFE finding on prong 2 later reversed without notice, and a wholly unexplained prong 3 balancing analysis), citing Matter of M-P- for the principle that an officer must fully explain denial reasons 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
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was internally incoherent and inadequately explained across all three Dhanasar prongs, precluding meaningful appellate review; AAO withdrew and remanded rather than ruling on merits.
This is a procedural remand for adjudicatory clarity, not a merits ruling; petitioners should still ensure record independently ties endeavor evidence to national-scale impact for reconsideration.
moderate
field_advancement
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl