Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded for a new decision, finding that SCOPS failed to properly discuss the evidence in the record, made factual errors (incorrectly identifying the petitioner's field as 'petroleum engineering'), and did not provide sufficient reasoning on the national importance and third Dhanasar prong analyses.
An urban planner and nonprofit founder seeking a national interest waiver was denied by SCOPS, which found her proposed endeavor lacked national importance and that waiving the job offer requirement would not benefit the U.S. On appeal, the AAO found that SCOPS' decision was legally insufficient because it ignored specific evidence in the record — including DC Office of Planning documents, real estate development records, and platform impact evidence — without explanation. SCOPS also incorrectly labeled the petitioner's field as 'petroleum engineering' and attributed arguments to her that she never made. Because the AAO could not conduct meaningful appellate review, it withdrew the decision and remanded for a new, fully reasoned determination on all three Dhanasar prongs.
What worked: The petitioner's advanced degree and professional background were sufficient to establish EB-2 eligibility, and SCOPS also found substantial merit and that she was well positioned to advance her endeavor — so two of the three Dhanasar prongs were arguably met or at least not finally resolved against her.
What failed: SCOPS found that the petitioner did not demonstrate national importance of her proposed endeavor or that waiving the job offer would benefit the U.S., though the AAO found these conclusions were not adequately supported by analysis of the actual evidence submitted.
Takeaway: When a USCIS denial does not specifically address the evidence you submitted or mischaracterizes your field or arguments, an appeal is appropriate — the AAO can remand for a fully reasoned decision. For NIW petitions, ensure that evidence of national-scale impact (government planning documents, project records, platform reach data) is prominently organized so officers cannot overlook it.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner's advanced degree and professional background were sufficient to establish EB-2 eligibility, and SCOPS also found substantial merit and that she was well positioned to advance her endeavor — so two of the three Dhanasar prongs were arguably met or at least not finally resolved against her.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- SCOPS found that the petitioner did not demonstrate national importance of her proposed endeavor or that waiving the job offer would benefit the U.S., though the AAO found these conclusions were not adequately supported by analysis of the actual evidence submitted.
Master's degree in public administration (awarded 2023) — sufficient to establish advanced degree professional status
14 years of experience across government, nonprofit, and private sectors in urban planning (sufficient for prong 1 substantial merit and prong 2, as accepted by SCOPS)
Letters of recommendation and support
Articles and industry reports on housing availability, affordability, and urban planning
Evidence of impact of petitioner's online platform on urban centers in the United States
Record evidence of redevelopment projects in DC, Virginia, and Michigan was not discussed by SCOPS and effectively not credited in the national importance analysis
District of Columbia Office of Planning roadmap and Infrastructure Assessment, deed and title documentation — not discussed by SCOPS
Petitioner's personal statement regarding national-level impact of her online platform — not addressed by SCOPS
SCOPS did not properly discuss specific evidence in the record when concluding the proposed endeavor lacked national importance
SCOPS incorrectly referenced the petitioner's field of endeavor as 'petroleum engineering'
SCOPS imposed a requirement not found in law by implying formal federal sponsorship was necessary to establish national importance
SCOPS did not discuss specific evidence related to redevelopment projects in DC, Virginia, and Michigan when concluding petitioner lacked corroborating evidence
SCOPS did not discuss the petitioner's online platform and its potential national-level impact on urban policy
SCOPS' third Dhanasar prong analysis identified no specific evidence weighed and attributed arguments to petitioner (occupational shortages) not found in her filings
SCOPS' decision was insufficient for meaningful appellate review
Completed
I-140 filed
Chief urban planner with experience in government, nonprofit, and private sectors; founder of a nonprofit online platform focused on equitable development and affordable housing
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-05-07
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded for a new decision, finding that SCOPS failed to properly discuss the evidence in the record, made factual errors (incorrectly identifying the petitioner's field as 'petroleum engineering'), and did not provide sufficient reasoning on the national importance and third Dhanasar prong analyses.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee