NIW Bearings
remandedSEP302024_02B52032024-09-30 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 sought to investigate and develop a model examining the intersection of public policy and supply chain management.

Field: supply chain management / public policy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director concluded the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“the Director noted that the Petitioner's RFE response included a business plan and personal statement that indicated the proposed endeavor is opening a consulting business, offering services to small and medium-sized businesses.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“The Director did not address all relevant documentation related to these factors, such as the Petitioner's publication and citation history, and failed to properly weigh other evidence in the record, specifically the recommendation letters.”
“the Director determined that the recommendation letters were insufficient because they were from current or prior colleagues of the Petitioner and not from independent sources”
“the record contains Independent Advisory Opinion letters from individuals who state that they have not worked with the Petitioner and describe his contributions to the field's knowledge of public policy and supply chain management.”

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 referenced documents which appear unrelated to the Petitioner's filing, such as articles and reports regarding the importance of small businesses.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “recommendation letters did not demonstrate that the Petitioner has influenced the Supply Chain Management field or industry on a national or global scale”
    AAO decision text
  • citations publications · ignored
  • business plan · ignored

Where this case turned

  • Citations insufficient · p2 — citation counts without qualitative account of impact
  • Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
249coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This is an unusual remand decision where the AAO withdrew the Director's denial not because the Petitioner met the Dhanasar prongs, but because the Director's analysis was procedurally deficient, referenced documents unrelated to the Petitioner's filing (apparently mixed up with another case involving a consulting business), and misapplied standards not found in Dhanasar (e.g., requiring national/global influence under prong 2). The AAO explicitly states the evidence may ultimately be insufficient but the Director must properly explain any denial.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Director's denial was procedurally deficient: it referenced unrelated documents (business plan, small-business articles), misapplied prong 2 by requiring national/global influence, and failed to weigh independent corroborating letters, warranting remand rather than affirmance.

Transferable lesson

On appeal, highlight adjudicator errors—misapplied legal standards, irrelevant record citations, unaddressed independent evidence—to secure remand even without reaching merits.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer