Who is actually behind the certificate?
A halal certificate is not issued by a logo. People own or control the organization, set its policies, conduct or supervise the audit, interpret Islamic requirements, manage conflicts, and approve the final decision. Consumers may never meet those people, but their roles determine whether a certificate deserves trust or further scrutiny.
A certification body can be real and active while the people responsible for audits, Islamic review, conflicts, and final decisions are not publicly identified. In that situation, the public can see the corporate shell or logo but cannot identify the people whose competence and religious judgment the certificate asks Muslims to trust. Industry history explains why these roles matter, but another organization’s conduct is not evidence against Circle H. Circle H must be assessed on its own legal records, public claims, operational evidence, and certification controls.
Circle H must be assessed on its own evidence. It is a real New Jersey nonprofit, but its public materials claim 32 scholars, multiple committees, extraordinary institutional authority, kosher collaboration, and broad certification work without identifying the names and supporting authorizations of nearly everyone said to perform or govern that work. This assessment asks who actually governs, audits, reviews, and decides for Circle H, and whether the record allows the community to verify that those authorities are qualified, appointed, and accountable.
Why identifiable governance matters: limited industry context
In 2017, the United States Department of Justice announced that the president of IS EG Halal Certified, Inc. had been convicted in a federal export case, while its employee and part owner had pleaded guilty to falsifying export certificates. The DOJ identified both defendants and their organizational roles. That history shows why named, accountable roles and oversight matter in certification, but it is not evidence that Circle H or its personnel engaged in the same conduct. [22]
IS EG later said the charges did not involve halal products, said its president continued to maintain innocence, and said an appeal remained pending. Contemporary reporting also described an intended appeal. A court docket records a later resentencing judgment after remand. These legal-posture facts concern IS EG, at that time, and must not be transferred to Circle H. [23] [24] [25]
The limited lesson for this assessment is procedural: a halal certification body should identify the people who govern it, the people qualified to audit and review files, the people who exercise Islamic decision authority, and the safeguards that make those roles accountable. Circle H is scored only on its own evidence, claims, records, and unresolved controls.
Circle H exists. The claimed authority still requires evidence.
Circle H International Inc. is a real New Jersey nonprofit. The official state business search identifies a domestic nonprofit corporation incorporated on September 14, 2020. IRS-derived filings identify Elsayed Zayan as a director and report three independent voting members [21] [22].
Those records establish that a legal organization exists. They do not verify Circle H’s broader claim that it is the only internationally recognized authority empowered by Al-Azhar University, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, 14 other Islamic universities, and ten major international associations [23].
The public question is therefore not whether Circle H is imaginary. It is whether the people, institutions, authorizations, and certification controls behind its extraordinary authority claims can be independently identified.
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Circle H International Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 10% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
Moderate confidence. Circle H International receives a 10% Credibility Score (Grade F). The reviewed record contains some direct evidence about its legal identity, operations, and public certificate information. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The assessment therefore relies on the reviewed evidence about its controls and operations, with limited supporting public information. The record does not yet provide enough substantiated evidence of the people, controls, and public accountability behind its certification work for someone to rely on the score alone.
See the three numerical score components
- Competence assurance
- 8.3629 of 90
- Accreditation breadth
- 0.0000 of 4
- Public accountability
- 1.1657 of 6
How to read this result: The score measures what the reviewed evidence supports. Information that was missing or unclear was not treated as proof that a safeguard does not exist. This is not a ruling on every certificate, product, or facility.
USDHS Accreditation-Dominant Credibility Score version 4.1. Source cutoff September 15, 2026. Last reviewed September 15, 2026. Raw Credibility Score 9.5287 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 10%.
Category breakdown
Where this score came from
Each bar shows how much of that category the reviewed evidence supported. A short bar means important information was missing, unclear, or not independently verified; it does not prove that an internal safeguard does not exist.
- 1. Legal identity and standing 65.38%
- 2. Ownership and control 0.00%
- 3. Accountable leadership and governance 14.21%
- 4. Qualified personnel 0.00%
- 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 0.00%
- 6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 24.53%
- 7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 0.00%
- 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 6.79%
- 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 1.07%
- 10. Certificate traceability and mark control 9.35%
- 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 3.00%
- 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 11.82%
What stands out
What helps—and what gives us pause
These are the most important positive and cautionary findings in the reviewed record. They explain the score rather than creating extra bonus points or penalties.
What supports confidence
Legal identity and nonprofit governance are strongly documented
New Jersey and official IRS records verify Circle H’s formation, tax-exempt operation, current and prior directors, three independent voting members, and the absence of a separate stockholder body or external approval right.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #3
Scoring treatment: Supports strong control and public-evidence credit for legal identity, nonprofit control, and accountable leadership.
Evidence boundary: The records do not identify the other two voting members, bylaws, internal appointment rules, or certification-specific recusal controls.
Current activity and executive leadership are independently corroborated
NSF and Nawah identify Elsayed Zayan in current executive roles, while IRS filings, certificate pages, and other records corroborate operation from 2020 through 2026.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #3, #12
Scoring treatment: Supports operational and public credit for continuing activity, accountable executive identity, and operating history.
Evidence boundary: Executive identity does not establish certification qualifications, Islamic authority, audit assignments, or final decision responsibility.
Circle H publishes a substantial assessment and certification workflow
The public process describes application, assessment, reporting, consulting, training, certification, renewal, withdrawal, and expiry functions across several sectors.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #6, #8
Scoring treatment: Supports public-evidence credit for the audit method and partial control credit for process design.
Evidence boundary: The workflow does not identify the responsible auditors, reviewers, Islamic authority, case assignments, mandatory onsite controls, or independent decision-maker.
Public certificate pages expose useful traceability fields
Circle H publishes certificate holders, products or services, identifiers, issue dates, and expiry dates.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #8, #10
Scoring treatment: Supports partial operational and public credit for scope and certificate traceability.
Evidence boundary: Useful fields do not cure contradictory status labels or establish a complete active, expired, suspended, withdrawn, and replaced certificate register.
What needs caution
The responsible people behind the claimed governance and certification system are hidden from public scrutiny
Circle H reports three voting members and claims 32 scholars and numerous religious and technical committees, yet the reviewed public record names only one current director and does not identify the other members, auditors, reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, or decision-makers. A number of claimed people and committees is not an accountable roster.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #3, #4, #5, #6, #12
Scoring treatment: Limits control, operational, and public-evidence factors for governance, competence, Islamic authority, audit implementation, and demonstrated capacity.
Evidence boundary: Zero employees is not treated as incapacity. Contractors, volunteers, advisers, affiliates, and governing members may perform legitimate work. The reviewed record does not identify their names, qualifications, appointments, authority, or assignments, so the claimed roles cannot receive accountable-person credit without responsive evidence.
Broad institutional authority and accreditation claims were not independently corroborated
Circle H names ten major institutions and uses accreditation and global-authority language, while current authoritative searches did not verify a direct exact-entity credential or attributable authorization from the named institutions.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #3, #8
Scoring treatment: Provides no accreditation-derived assurance and limits public and control credit for governing authority and scheme boundaries.
Evidence boundary: The bounded searches do not prove that no private agreement or historical relationship exists. Circle H can supply signed current records with dates, scope, and named authorities.
Sources: [3] [4] [12] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [23] [24]
Kosher-collaboration claims do not disclose the halal division of work
Circle H and CH Group publicly describe kosher collaboration, including OU by name, without identifying which party performs each inspection, how halal-specific observations are made, or who retains Islamic review and certification authority.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #5, #6, #7
Scoring treatment: Limits public and operational credit for the halal audit chain, religious decision authority, and separation of outside evidence from Circle H’s own certification decision.
Evidence boundary: The records do not prove OU endorsed Circle H or performed halal work, and they do not prove Circle H delegates its halal decision. The undisclosed division of responsibility is the accountability issue.
A related commercial organization received Circle H certification without a public recusal record
CH Group presents itself within the same business family and publicly describes its Circle H certification, while no reviewed record identifies the independent approver, conflict declaration, or recusal safeguard.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #2, #7
Scoring treatment: Limits ownership-and-control operational credit and impartiality control, operational, and public-evidence factors.
Evidence boundary: The related-party certification is not proof of improper approval. A documented conflict declaration, recusal, and independent decision record could resolve the concern.
The sampled certificate-status pages contradicted their own expiry dates
The Gourmet Kosher Management and Micsafe Medical Group pages remained headed Valid Halal Certificate after the expiry dates displayed on those pages had passed.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #10
Scoring treatment: Sets sampled operational certificate-status evidence to zero and limits public and control credit for the verification system.
Evidence boundary: The contradiction does not prove either organization lacked a later certificate or that Circle H intentionally misstated status. It establishes that the reviewed pages did not reliably answer current validity.
Conflict and complaint safeguards remain incomplete
The official IRS return reports no conflict-of-interest policy, while consulting, training, assessment, and certification are described within one framework and no complete complaints and appeals procedure was reviewed.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #7, #11
Scoring treatment: Limits all impartiality layers and leaves complaint control and operational evidence at zero with only limited public contact credit.
Evidence boundary: The finding does not prove an undisclosed conflict or complaint system does not exist. It reports the official filing and the controls not established in the reviewed record.
How USDHS calculated the score and grade
Model B totals competence assurance from 0 to 90, proportional current exact-entity accreditation breadth from 0 to 4, and public accountability from 0 to 6. A current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation establishes competence within verified scope; affirmative contradictions reduce it requirement by requirement. Every qualifying authority contributes 0.8000 breadth points against the five-authority national benchmark, capped at four. Public accountability remains separate. The 137 requirement statuses remain visible as the evidence record. Classification bands: A, 90 to 100, strongly substantiated; B, 80 to 89, substantiated; C, 70 to 79, partially substantiated; D, 60 to 69, material gaps; F, 0 to 59, insufficiently substantiated.
Detailed evidence
Why each category received its result
1. Legal identity and standing
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the public can identify the organization behind the certificate and confirm that it is legally connected to the work. 3 checks were fully supported, and 5 checks had partial support.
65.38% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
8 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
3.2691 of 5 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 3.0441 of 4.5000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2250 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 3.4375 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 3 fulfilled, 5 partial.
Why this metric earned 65.38 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.0441 competence + 0.2250 public accountability = 3.2691 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 1.C1 — fulfilled: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
Evidence route: Public source. New Jersey registration and IRS records establish Circle H as a resolvable domestic nonprofit legal entity.
Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
Evidence route: Public source. New Jersey and IRS records establish continuing filings and active tax-exempt operation.
Requirement 1.C3 — partial: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. CH Group is presented as a commercial organization within the same business family and certified by Circle H, and Zayan is an executive of both, but the IRS filing reports no related entity.
Requirement 1.C4 — partial: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. CH Group's affiliate relationship is publicly presented but the IRS filing reports no related entity or reportable business relationship, leaving material relationships affecting certification authority incompletely documented.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 1.O1 — partial: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. Public certificate pages and relationships corroborate operation, but full contract accountability is not completely established.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.O2 — partial: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
Evidence route: Public source. IRS records publicly expose the mailing address, providing partial evidence of the operating location.
Public sources: Source 1
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
Evidence route: Public source. IRS records publicly expose the legal name, EIN, and officer information.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 1.P2 — partial: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
Evidence route: Public source. The IRS return's LLC wording should be reconciled with the public Inc. name, indicating a potential minor conflict in presented issuer identities.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
2. Ownership and control
What this means in plain English: This category asks who ultimately owns or controls the organization and whether related interests are clearly identified. None of the 9 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Ownership and control earns 0.0000 of 8 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 2.C1 — not verified: Ultimate owners or members are identified.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 2.O1 — not verified: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 2.P1 — not verified: Consumers can identify the controlling person or organization when ownership identity is part of the public accountability standard.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 2.P2 — not verified: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
3. Accountable leadership and governance
What this means in plain English: This category asks who is responsible for the certification program, how authority is assigned, and who is accountable for its decisions. 1 check was fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
14.21% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
1.9888 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 1.7788 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.2100 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 2.2050 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 1 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 14.21 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.7788 competence + 0.2100 public accountability = 1.9888 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 3.C1 — fulfilled: Senior leadership is identified.
Evidence route: Public source. IRS filings and independent announcements corroborate Elsayed Zayan's executive leadership role.
Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Government filings publicly identify the current director, but the other two members and committee rosters remain unnamed.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
4. Qualified personnel
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the people doing audits, reviews, and decisions are identified, qualified, authorized, and kept competent. None of the 14 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
14 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 14 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 4.P3 — not verified: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights
What this means in plain English: This category asks who provides the Islamic review, what authority that person or body has, and who makes the final halal decision. None of the 11 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.0000 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 11 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 5.C1 — not verified: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls
What this means in plain English: This category asks what the certifier actually checks, what halal-specific evidence it records, and how findings lead to approval, follow-up, or withdrawal. 1 check was fully supported, 6 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
24.53% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
15 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
3.4341 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 3.0141 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.4200 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 3.8967 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 6 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 24.53 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 3.0141 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 3.4341 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 6.C1 — partial: Application and application review are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Circle H publishes a detailed workflow including application and scope review, but methodology 2.5 limits procedure-only control credit when named auditors, reviewers, authorizations, assignments, and accountable decisions are not substantiated.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C2 — not verified: The audit program and audit time are determined by scope, risk, complexity, sites, and prior results.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 6.C4 — partial: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Evidence route: Public source. Circle H publishes a detailed workflow including on-site work, ingredients, processes, and findings, but methodology 2.5 limits procedure-only control credit when named auditors, reviewers, authorizations, assignments, and accountable decisions are not substantiated.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 6.C6 — partial: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. Circle H publishes a detailed workflow including corrections and reports, but methodology 2.5 limits procedure-only control credit when named auditors, reviewers, authorizations, assignments, and accountable decisions are not substantiated.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 6.C8 — partial: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Circle H publishes a detailed workflow including surveillance and recertification, but methodology 2.5 limits procedure-only control credit when named auditors, reviewers, authorizations, assignments, and accountable decisions are not substantiated.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 6.O1 — partial: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Evidence route: Public source. Public certificates and independent relationships show activity, but no representative audit reports, corrective records, personnel assignments, or final decisions were reviewed.
Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 6.O3 — partial: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
Evidence route: Public source. The public record verifies that Circle H and its affiliated commercial group publicly claim kosher collaboration, including OU by name, but does not prove that OU endorsed Circle H, supplied halal audit work, or transferred religious authority.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 6.P1 — fulfilled: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Evidence route: Public source. The process is detailed, publishing a detailed certification workflow.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence
What this means in plain English: This category asks how the organization prevents commercial interests, consulting work, or personal conflicts from controlling certification decisions. None of the 11 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 6 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 5.4000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.3600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 0.0000 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 11 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 7.C1 — not verified: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
What this means in plain English: This category asks which current rules govern the certification, what products and facilities they cover, and where the limits or exclusions are. 2 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
6.79% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.2038 of 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.1588 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0450 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.2625 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 6.79 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1588 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 0.2038 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 8.C1 — not verified: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 8.C2 — partial: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. Sectors and general requirements are public, and certificate pages identify holders, products, and sectors.
Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 8.O1 — not verified: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 8.P1 — partial: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Sectors are public, but standard text, version, and consistent certificate-level references are not.
Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether an ordinary reader can find the certifier’s practical halal rules and understand the positions behind its approvals. 5 checks had partial support, and 15 checks remained unverified.
1.07% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
20 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0857 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0857 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.2143 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 5 partial, 15 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 1.07 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0857 public accountability = 0.0857 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.P5 — partial: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Evidence route: Public source. General disclosure on slaughter and poultry controls, including manual slaughter.
Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.P9 — partial: Pork and animal derivatives.
Evidence route: Public source. General disclosure on ingredients and production environment regarding haram items like pork.
Requirement 9.P10 — partial: Alcohol and ethanol.
Evidence route: Public source. General disclosure on ingredients and production environment regarding haram items like alcohol.
Requirement 9.P11 — partial: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Evidence route: Public source. General disclosure on ingredients and production environment.
Requirement 9.P12 — not verified: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 9.P14 — partial: Certificate-level position communication.
Evidence route: Public source. Public certificate or client verification is partially disclosed as it only lists featured clients, not a full verification database.
Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
10. Certificate traceability and mark control
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether a certificate can be checked for its holder, site, scope, dates, and current status, and whether misuse of the mark is controlled. 3 checks had partial support, and 7 checks remained unverified.
9.35% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.2806 of 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.1906 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0900 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.4050 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 3 partial, 7 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 9.35 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1906 competence + 0.0900 public accountability = 0.2806 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 10.C1 — not verified: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 10.C2 — partial: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Circle H maintains a directory and smart-verification system that publishes individual certificate pages with company names, product or scope descriptions, dates, and unique numbers, but no complete active, expired, suspended, withdrawn, replaced, or misuse-control register was reviewed.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 10.O3 — not verified: Directory and status records are maintained.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 10.P1 — partial: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.
Evidence route: Public source. Circle H's smart-verification system allows consumers to verify a producer, product, brand, certificate issue date, and expiry date via a searchable directory/QR destination, but the status control is not reliable as sampled pages displayed expired dates under a 'Valid Halal Certificate' heading.
Requirement 10.P2 — partial: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
Evidence route: Public source. Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and dates, but the contradictory validity labels prevent reliable current-status verification.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether people can challenge a decision, report a problem, receive an independent review, and see appropriate corrective action. 2 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
3.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0300 of 1 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.9000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0300 of 0.0600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0750 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 3.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.0300 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 11.C1 — not verified: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 11.P1 — partial: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
Evidence route: Public source. A general email contact exists, but it is not a complete complaints and appeals procedure.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 11.P2 — partial: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
Evidence route: Public source. A contact route exists, establishing a submission pathway, but the formal accountability system is not fully clear.
Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the organization has a verifiable operating record and enough qualified people and resources for the certification work it claims to perform. 2 checks were fully supported, and 7 checks remained unverified.
11.82% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.2365 of 2 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.1765 of 1.8000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0600 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.3167 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 2 fulfilled, 7 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 11.82 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1765 competence + 0.0600 public accountability = 0.2365 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 12.C1 — not verified: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 12.O1 — not verified: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Evidence route: Authoritative source. Incorporation, IRS filings, certificate pages, NSF, and Nawah corroborate activity from 2020 through 2026.
Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5 · Source 6
Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 12.P1 — fulfilled: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. Circle H publishes sectors, process, certificates, and relationships, while the personnel and contractor capacity behind the claimed workload remains unidentified.
Requirement 12.P2 — not verified: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Evidence route: Public source. Not verified in current baseline.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
Bottom line
What you should know
What the evidence supports
- Legal identity and standing was the strongest documented area, supported by the available record.
- The review found some, but limited, support for halal-specific audit and certification controls.
- The review also found limited evidence of operating history and demonstrated capacity.
What should make you cautious
- The reviewed record did not independently verify the personnel qualifications and authorization needed for the claimed work; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
- The reviewed record did not independently verify Islamic authority or final halal decision rights; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
- The reviewed record left major gaps in accountable leadership and governance; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
What evidence could change this view
- What current, verifiable records would clarify ownership and control?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify qualified personnel?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify islamic authority and halal decision rights?
View the original requirement-level questions
- What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.C3 under the published methodology?
- What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.C4 under the published methodology?
- What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.O1 under the published methodology?
- What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.O2 under the published methodology?
- What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.P2 under the published methodology?
- What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 2.C1 under the published methodology?
Credibility Score interpretation
- Model B assigns 8.3629 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 1.1657 of 6 public-accountability points.
- No qualifying current comprehensive exact-entity accreditation was applied; competence is normalized from the same control and operational requirement evidence used across the national set, and accreditation breadth is zero.
- Recognition, commercial approval, membership, affiliate credentials, expired credentials, and scope that does not cover the assessed work do not qualify as current exact-entity accreditation breadth.
- Missing public information means the reviewed public record did not establish the disclosure; it is not proof that an undisclosed internal control does not exist.
Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Privately share information or evidence. Evidence-source names and contact details are not exposed publicly. An authorized representative may separately claim this certification body with qualifying documents. A verified claim does not confer editorial control or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, ranking, or certification status.
Read the full legal and evidence boundary
This organizational accountability assessment measures evidence supporting identity, control, responsible people, Islamic authority, halal-specific work, standards, public certification criteria, certificate controls, correction access, and demonstrated operations. Each of 137 enumerated subrequirements is shown below. A not-verified finding means the reviewed record did not establish the item; it is not proof that the control does not exist, that wrongdoing occurred, or that every certificate is invalid. Private evidence is described only at a non-identifying level. The existing series label is editorial branding and is not itself an allegation. Flags explain evidence already scored inside the twelve fixed metrics and create no separate bonus or penalty. The assessment is not a religious ruling, legal judgment, fraud finding, guarantee, or declaration that every certificate is valid or invalid. An undisclosed item is not treated as proof that no internal control exists.
What the search for recognized authorities found
This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. Circle H’s own pages and outside announcements use accreditation, authorization, partnership, and recognition language, but GAC and ANAB exact-name queries, HAK and EIAC directory checks, and current JAKIM, MUIS, BPJPH-related, and CICOT recognition records did not identify Circle H [3] [4] [12] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. These limited searches do not prove that no private agreement or credential exists anywhere. They mean this assessment gives no accreditation-derived control or operational credit unless Circle H supplies the issuer, authority tier, status, standard, dates, locations, scope, restrictions, surveillance, and independence evidence. This public assessment does not replace the controlling HIPS standard, an accreditation decision, a certification decision, or a religious ruling.
The accreditation finding affects the score directly, but it is not the only issue. The detailed findings below show which public records and operating evidence received credit, which contradictions and governance gaps created flags within specific areas, and what documents could change the Credibility Score.
Zero employees is not the concern
Circle H’s filing reports zero employees. That is not inherently unusual: nonprofits may rely on contractors, volunteers, advisers, affiliated service providers, or governing members rather than employees.
The narrower concern is disclosure. Circle H’s filing reports three voting members but names only Zayan. Its current Sharia Council page describes 32 leading scholars, eight religious committees, eight technical committees, and responsibility for thousands of products, yet the reviewed page and embedded media do not identify those scholars, committee members, auditors, religious assessors, or certification decision-makers [22] [24].
The reviewed public record confirms that Zayan is a real director and executive associated with Circle H and CH Group. It does not establish the identities and qualifications of the wider religious and technical structure that Circle H says performs and governs certification. It also does not permit any conclusion about an individual’s religion.
The term hidden is deliberate. Circle H publicly claims 32 scholars and 16 committees but does not provide the names needed to identify those people, verify their qualifications, confirm current membership, or determine who handled a particular file. The missing roster does not prove that no qualified person or committee exists. It means an unexplained headcount cannot be treated as verified religious authority, competent personnel, or attributable decision control.
Allah says, “وَلَا تَقۡفُ مَا لَيۡسَ لَكَ بِهِۦ عِلۡمٌۚ إِنَّ ٱلسَّمۡعَ وَٱلۡبَصَرَ وَٱلۡفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُوْلَٰٓئِكَ كَانَ عَنۡهُ مَسۡـُٔولٗا”—“Do not follow what you have no sure knowledge of” [43]. The hadith sciences offer a limited comparison: Ibn Hajar wrote that a report from an unnamed narrator is not accepted until the narrator is named, because identity must be known before reliability can be assessed [44]. Where a narrator’s status remains unknown, he described the careful position as suspended judgment until the condition becomes clear [45]. A halal certificate is not a hadith; the point is that Muslim verification disciplines require scrutiny before reliance, rather than granting authority to unnamed people because an institution says they exist.
| Public record | What it verifies | What remains unidentified |
|---|---|---|
| New Jersey registration | A real domestic nonprofit incorporated in 2020. | Auditors, religious assessors, and decision-makers. |
| IRS filing | Three independent voting members and one named director. | The other voting members and claimed committee personnel. |
| Sharia Council page | Circle H claims 32 scholars and 16 committees. | Names, qualifications, mandates, and current membership. |
Who is Elsayed Zayan? His executive role is documented, but his certification authority is not explained
Elsayed Zayan is a real, publicly identifiable executive associated with Circle H. IRS-derived filings for 2023 through 2025 identify him as a director. NSF’s March 2026 collaboration announcement identifies him as Circle H’s CEO, and Nawah Scientific’s announcement identifies Sayed Zayan as Circle H’s chairman and CEO [22] [35] [36]. These unrelated records independently support his leadership role and Circle H’s continuing activity.
Those records do not explain what qualifies Zayan to govern a halal certification body. The reviewed public record does not publish his education, halal-auditor training, food or manufacturing expertise, Islamic-studies qualification, monitored audit experience, certification-committee role, ownership interest, or written scope of authority. It does not identify whether he performs audits, religious review, certification decisions, executive administration, or a combination of those functions.
Circle H may assign technical and religious work to contractors, volunteers, advisers, affiliated specialists, or committee members. That staffing model can be legitimate. The transparency problem is that the organization claims an extensive global structure while leaving the people who perform those functions unidentified. If Zayan does not make religious or certification decisions, Circle H should name the qualified people who do. If he does, it should publish the qualifications and controls that authorize him.
A certifier asks consumers and businesses to trust a decision they cannot independently reproduce. That trust requires more than a real executive and a registered nonprofit. It requires an attributable chain from ownership and governance through audit, religious review, and the final certification decision.
- The unanswered question is who the other voting members reported in Circle H’s filings are and what authority each holds.
- The record does not state Elsayed Zayan’s ownership or control interest, or his education and halal, audit, sector, and Islamic qualifications.
- The public record does not name the auditors, technical specialists, Sharia council members, reviewers, and certification decision-makers.
- It is unclear whether those people are employees, contractors, volunteers, advisers, or affiliates, and what authorization and monitoring records govern their work.
- It is also unclear who approved certificates involving CH Group and what recusal and independent-review safeguards applied.
Circle H’s commercial affiliate names OU collaboration
USDHS received a report that a Circle H page linked to the Orthodox Union (OU), which operates the OU Kosher certification program. The current and archived pages reviewed did not reproduce a clickable ou.org or oukosher.org destination in either direction. A deeper HTML review verified a narrower point: CH Group’s live halal-certification page says that Circle H credibility is reinforced through collaboration with industry leaders including ‘OU (kosher).’ The phrase appears as plain text, not as a hyperlink [25].
Circle H’s own kosher-certification page separately says that it works with recognized kosher agencies on mutual support, joint certification projects, programs and events, and convenient kosher access for halal clients. It does not name those agencies or state which party performs which inspection or certification task [26].
This evidence supports reporting that Circle H and its affiliated commercial group publicly claim kosher collaboration, including OU by name. It does not prove that OU endorsed Circle H, supplied halal audit work, transferred religious authority, or linked to Circle H from an OU-owned page.
Gourmet Kosher certification raises a case-specific audit question
Circle H published a certificate page naming Gourmet Kosher Management Corp. as the certificate holder and covering ‘All Gourmet Kosher products produced at their facility.’ The reviewed page does not explain the company’s ownership, public operating location, or relationship to the Fresko brand. It displays a certificate number and dates but no auditor, inspection date, visit type, governing standard, assessor qualifications, product schedule, or halal-specific findings [27].
Circle H’s other pages describe assessment teams, compliance reports, production sites, slaughter, alcohol, equipment, and contamination. Those general descriptions do not show what occurred in the Gourmet Kosher file. The supportable question is who conducted the halal-specific assessment, which standard and scope they applied, what evidence they reviewed, and who made the decision.
Expired dates still appear under a ‘Valid Halal Certificate’ heading
Circle H says its smart-verification system allows consumers and businesses to confirm a producer, product, brand, certificate issue date, and expiry date. The site does publish individual certificate pages with company names, product or scope descriptions, dates, and unique numbers [39]. That is more useful than a logo without a record.
The status control was not reliable in the sample reviewed. The Gourmet Kosher Management page remained headed ‘Valid Halal Certificate’ while displaying an end date of February 28, 2026. A Micsafe Medical Group page used the same valid heading while displaying an end date of August 31, 2023 [27] [40]. By the September 10, 2026 source cutoff, both displayed end dates had passed.
This does not prove that either company lacked a later certificate or that Circle H intentionally misstated a status. It shows that the public pages reviewed conflicted with themselves: the status label said valid while the displayed credential dates said expired. A verification system must distinguish active, expired, suspended, withdrawn, and replaced credentials in real time, or it cannot reliably answer the question it was built to answer.
| Public certificate page | Displayed end date | Displayed status at source cutoff |
|---|---|---|
| Gourmet Kosher Management Corp. | February 28, 2026 | Valid Halal Certificate |
| Micsafe Medical Group Inc. | August 31, 2023 | Valid Halal Certificate |
Ten institutional claims were not independently corroborated
Circle H’s Sharia Council page lists ten organizations as Strategic Partners, including Al-Azhar, the OIC, AAOIFI, AIDSMO, IFSB, GSO, SMIIC, the Islamic University in Uganda, and IIDR. Circle H’s IRS program description says it is accredited by ten of the largest Islamic organizations [22] [24].
Ten separate research tracks searched those institutions’ official current domains, attributable publications, and available archives for Circle H, Circle H Certification, CH Group, and Elsayed Zayan. No corroborating institutional record was found in the reviewed sources.
That review of sources not finding corroboration does not prove that no private agreement or historical authorization exists. It means that Circle H’s public partnership and accreditation claims remain unverified by the institutions in the public records reviewed. Circle H can resolve the issue by publishing the signed agreements, dates, scope, named signatories, and current status.
Circle H certified an organization presented within the same business family
CH Group presents itself as a commercial organization offering importing, exporting, investment, and related services within the same business family as Circle H. Its website says Circle H certified CH Group’s importing/exporting agency services and fund investment activities. First-party announcements identify Zayan as an executive of both organizations [28].
The IRS filing says Circle H had no related entity and no reportable business relationship with an organizational member or controlled entity. The public record reviewed does not disclose who approved CH Group’s certificate, whether Zayan was recused, or what independent-review safeguard governed the decision [22].
This is a question about governance transparency, not proof of improper certification. A published recusal and independent decision record could resolve it.
What the HIPS 1002 standard requires
In USDHS editorial analysis, HIPS 1002 expects a certification body to identify accountable governance, competent review and audit roles, qualified religious adjudication, documented observations, a declared scope, and an independent certification decision. Contractors and external specialists may support the work, but the organization must still be able to identify who held each role and how conflicts were controlled [29].
Circle H’s public descriptions make extensive authority and governance claims. The reviewed evidence does not identify the responsible people, institutional authorizations, audit records, or decision safeguards needed to verify those claims against HIPS expectations.
USDHS guidance: verify Circle H beyond the public claim
The reviewed public record verifies that Circle H is a real and active nonprofit, but many of the people it presents as the source of its religious and technical authority are not publicly identified. The record does not substantiate enough of the organization’s controlling people, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, separation of decisions, institutional authorization, certificate-status controls, and complaint system to support reliance on the public claim alone. USDHS advises consumers, institutions, retailers, and accreditation decision-makers to obtain file-level and organizational evidence before relying on Circle H certification.
Before relying on a Circle H credential, request the current certificate and product schedule, verify the facility and expiry date, identify the governing standard, obtain the halal audit record, and ask who performed the audit, religious review, technical review, and final decision. Where Circle H certified an affiliated or related organization, request the conflict declaration, recusal, and independent approval record.
This is not a conclusion that Circle H is fictitious, that contractor staffing is improper, that every Circle H certificate is invalid, or that any named person is or is not Muslim. It is a conclusion that Circle H’s unusually broad authority and partnership claims are not presently matched by enough identifiable people, independently verifiable qualifications, appointments, authorizations, and file-level records. Until those people are named and substantiated, they cannot be treated as accountable religious authorities merely because Circle H reports a headcount.
Questions Circle H can answer
Circle H can resolve the public-record gaps by supplying documents that can be attributed to it. Confidential commercial details may be redacted if the remaining record identifies the governing people, authority, audit method, scope, and decision safeguards.
- It can identify the three voting members reported to the IRS.
- It can identify the 32 scholars and the members of the eight religious and eight technical committees.
- It can identify who performs facility audits and religious assessment, whether as employees, contractors, volunteers, or affiliates.
- It can state which ten institutions accredited or authorized Circle H, and under what scope and dates.
- It can document the OU relationship and state which party performs each certification task.
- It can identify who audited and approved Gourmet Kosher Management.
- It can identify who approved CH Group’s certificate and what recusal safeguards applied.
How public certification criteria and positions are disclosed
The disclosure review asks a separate question from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme, its current version, the approving authority, and the material halal positions that govern this body’s certifications? The public material is fragmented, stale, difficult to locate, or insufficient to determine the complete current position.
On governing documents, scope, and certificate communication, the reviewed sources establish the following: See quote. [47] [48]
The remaining reviewed questions were not sufficiently disclosed to classify with confidence: See quote. This records a public-evidence limit and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
On slaughter and poultry controls, the reviewed sources establish the following: See quote. [49] [50]
The remaining reviewed questions were not sufficiently disclosed to classify with confidence: See quote; General tasmiyyah required, mechanical not specified. This records a public-evidence limit and does not prove that the body has no internal rule.
On ingredients and the production environment, the reviewed sources establish the following: See quote. [49] [51]
The disclosure measure considers whether the position is publicly understandable, not whether it is the strictest position. A disclosed position within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized merely because another body follows a different view.
What evidence could change the remaining findings
This section describes what evidence could support a higher score for Circle H International. It does not mean a control is absent merely because the reviewed public record did not establish it. A submission must match the exact assessed entity, identify its dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.
Qualifying records may be public or may be submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records may support evidence of controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not create public-transparency credit unless the organization makes the material information public.
- Metric 1 — Legal identity and operating status: A current authoritative registry or regulator record for Circle H International showing the exact legal name, entity number, jurisdiction, formation date, active status, operating name, and any required certification-business registration not already established.
- Metric 2 — Ownership and control: A current authoritative ownership filing or authenticated controlled record for Circle H International identifying beneficial owners, ownership percentages, voting or governance rights, controlling persons, related entities, and conflict controls for the exact assessed entity.
- Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: A current Circle H International governing-body roster and organogram identifying accountable leaders, their roles, appointment or authority basis, management responsibilities, and entity-level accountability for certification decisions.
- Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current Circle H International personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record identifying auditors, technical experts, reviewers, contractors, qualifications, sector experience, halal and audit training, authorization scope, assignments, monitoring, and competence review.
- Metric 5 — Islamic authority and halal decision: Current Circle H International records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, qualifications, appointment, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, entity-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
- Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled Circle H International audit procedure and corroborating recent files showing application and scope review, ingredients and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
- Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current Circle H International impartiality and decision-separation policy plus implementation records identifying conflict review, consultancy separation, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision.
- Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope: A current Circle H International standard or scheme record identifying version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and responsible issuing entity.
- Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public Circle H International declaration or equivalent methodology covering the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, supplementary-scheme precedence, certificate communication, and public verification route.
- Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public Circle H International certificate directory or verification method showing certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable mark-use and misuse controls.
- Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public Circle H International complaints, appeals, and corrections procedure identifying submission routes, acknowledgement and response timing, independent review, records, re-examination, corrective action, and non-retaliation or equivalent fairness protections.
- Metric 12 — Operating history and demonstrated capacity: Current independently verifiable Circle H International operating records showing timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and competent personnel capacity matched to that workload.
Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body
Circle H International or another affected party may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is evaluated under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers the Credibility Score.
An authorized representative may also use Claim this certification body. The claimant must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity, and that authority must be verified through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until reviewed; it does not give editorial control, disclose other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.
A correction request should identify the exact entity, statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication does not depend on a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.
Frequently asked questions
Why did this assessment give Circle H a low F grade?
Official IRS records provide support for nonprofit governance and named directors, and current activity, a detailed workflow, and certificate fields are also documented. However, the other voting members, claimed scholars and committees, qualified personnel, Islamic decision authority, conflict and recusal controls, reliable certificate status, complaints handling, and recognized accreditation remain insufficiently substantiated. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization.
Does reporting zero employees mean Circle H is inactive or incapable?
No. Contractors, volunteers, advisers, affiliates, and governing members may perform legitimate work. The accountability concern is that Circle H does not identify who fills its claimed audit, technical, religious-review, committee, and certification-decision roles, or publish their qualifications and assignments.
Does the kosher-collaboration evidence show that Circle H delegates halal certification to OU or another kosher body?
No. The reviewed records establish public collaboration claims, but they do not establish that OU endorsed Circle H, performed halal work, or received halal authority. The unresolved question is that the division of audit work, halal-specific observations, religious review, and final decision authority is not disclosed.
Why do the certificate pages raise a concern?
Two sampled pages displayed ‘Valid Halal Certificate’ after their stated expiry dates had passed. That does not prove that a later certificate did not exist or that the status was intentionally misstated. It shows that the reviewed public verification pages did not reliably distinguish current from expired status.
Can Circle H’s score or flags change?
Yes. USDHS will rescore material authoritative evidence under the same control, operational, and public-evidence layers. Records identifying governing members, qualified personnel, institutional authorizations, audit files, recusal controls, certificate-status corrections, complaint outcomes, or current accreditation may raise or lower the Credibility Score.
References
- New Jersey Division of Revenue, Business Name Search
- IRS-derived Circle H International nonprofit filings
- Circle H International, About
- Circle H International, Sharia Council
- Circle H International, Certification Process Overview
- Circle H International, Halal Governance
- Circle H International, Certification Verify System
- Circle H International, Gourmet Kosher Management certificate page
- Circle H International, Micsafe Medical Group certificate page
- NSF and Circle H strategic collaboration
- Nawah Scientific and Circle H announcement
- GCC Accreditation Center, Accredited Bodies
- IRS, Form 990 Series Downloads and official 2025 Circle H return (object 202611119349301856)
- ANAB, Directory of Accredited Organizations
- Halal Accreditation Agency of Türkiye, Accredited HCABs
- Emirates International Accreditation Centre, Directory
- MUIS, Recognized Foreign Halal Certification Bodies
- JAKIM, Recognized Foreign Halal Certification Bodies, effective January 30, 2026
- USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Indonesia’s Foreign Halal Body Recognition Context
- USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, CICOT U.S. Foreign Halal Certification Bodies for 2025–2028
- New Jersey Division of Revenue, Business Name Search
- IRS-derived Circle H International nonprofit filings
- Circle H International, Global Halal Authority
- Circle H International, Sharia Council
- CH Group, Halal Certification
- Circle H International, Kosher Certification
- Circle H International, Gourmet Kosher Management certificate page
- CH Group, Circle H Halal Certified
- USDHS, HIPS 1002:2026 Halal Certification Bodies
- USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, New Egyptian Halal Procedures May Affect Trade and Increase Prices
- U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, Wael Hana sentencing release
- IS EG Halal, Statement from Headquarters
- NorthJersey.com, NJ business owner at center of Menendez investigation
- CourtListener, United States v. Menendez (Hana), Second Circuit No. 25-296
- NSF, Strategic Collaboration with Circle H
- Nawah Scientific, Circle H Accreditation for Halal Food Testing
- Circle H International, Certification Process Overview
- Circle H International, Halal Governance
- Circle H International, Certification Verify System
- Circle H International, Micsafe Medical Group certificate page
- Circle H International, Contact Us
- Circle H International, FAQ
- Quran.com, Al-Isra 17:36
- Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Nuzhat al-Nazar — unnamed and unknown-in-identity narrators
- Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Nuzhat al-Nazar — unknown-status narrators and suspended judgment
- Kawaid, Aris, and Wan Jamil, The Status of Narrations by Majhul Narrators
- Circle H International
- Get Access and Choice with Halal Certification
- What is Haram?
- What is Halal? A Guide for Non-Muslims
- What Is Halal Food?
View the controlling HIPS publication