All Cases

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the Director's decision lacked a complete and accurate analysis of the submitted evidence. The Director failed to explain how the evidence was deficient in meeting motion requirements and did not address arguments in the supporting legal brief. Specifically, the Director inaccurately stated that 'no evidence' was submitted in response to the RFE for criteria (ii), (vi), and (viii), despite the Petitioner providing a 14-page statement addressing these. The Director also did not adequately discuss the evidence submitted in support of the motion itself, thereby precluding a meaningful opportunity to appeal.

The AAO withdrew the Director's decision, finding that the Petitioner sufficiently explained the discrepancy regarding his U.S. work plans and demonstrated prospective benefit to the U.S. The AAO also found that the Petitioner met the 'lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards' criterion by submitting certificates from Ethiopian government ministries for 'excellence' in the construction field, which were deemed nationally recognized. The case was remanded for a final merits determination as to whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim.