Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 5% Credibility Score, Grade F

A halal mark should explain the rules behind an approval

People who rely on halal labels need to know that the certifier has independent oversight, clear standards, and a way to trace and check product claims. Without those safeguards, unverified practices and conflicts of interest can put the integrity of the halal supply chain at risk [1].

Hijrah Ranch LLC runs a halal certification program from Waskom, Texas, serving businesses in Texas and Louisiana [1]. Its published process has five steps, including a Halal Assurance Plan and on-site reviews [1].

Who Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification is

Hijrah Ranch LLC is a co-owned entity operated by Salwa Rahman and Emad Husni Taysir Alsidawi [1]. It says it provides halal certification services to facilities in the region and highlights requirements including a Muslim slaughterperson and the correct invocation (Tasmiyah) for each animal [2].

Although the program describes its operating scope, the reviewed public record does not establish its wider governance structure, an independent process for certification decisions, or personnel qualifications [1]. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization.

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

Hijrah Ranch LLC Halal Certification program Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 5% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Limited confidence. The Hijrah Ranch LLC Halal Certification program receives a 5% Credibility Score and Grade F. The reviewed evidence does not yet provide a sufficient basis to rely on the score alone. The program’s public materials describe some basic halal requirements and a facility-review process. However, this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, and the record did not establish enough evidence about governance, qualified personnel, final halal decisions, certification controls, or public accountability. The result reflects what the reviewed evidence established, not proof that any undisclosed control, practice, or document does not exist.

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 5.0598 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 5%.

Detailed evidence

Why each category received its result

1. 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. 1 check was fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 5 checks remained unverified.

   17.56% 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.

   0.8779 of 5 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

   0.7279 of 4.5000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.1500 of 0.3000 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 1.0625 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 2 partial, 5 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 17.56 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.7279 competence + 0.1500 public accountability = 0.8779 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 1.C1 — partial: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.

      Evidence route: Public source. The public site identifies Hijrah Ranch LLC, but no authoritative current registry extract was located.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 1.C2 — not verified: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 1.C3 — not verified: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 1.C4 — not verified: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 1.O1 — not verified: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 1.O2 — partial: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.

      Evidence route: Public source. The public site identifies the service area in Texas and Louisiana, but no authoritative current registry extract was located.

      Public sources: Source 1

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.

      Evidence route: Public source. The public site identifies the accountable issuer as Hijrah Ranch LLC.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 1.P2 — not verified: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted 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.

2. 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

   1. Requirement 2.C1 — not verified: Ultimate owners or members are identified.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   5. Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 2.O1 — not verified: Ownership and control records are current, maintained, and available to an authorized verifier.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. 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. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. 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. No public evidence found in the accepted 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. 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. 2 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.

   7.85% 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.

   1.0994 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

   0.8894 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.2100 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 1.3650 of 14 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 8 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 7.85 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.8894 competence + 0.2100 public accountability = 1.0994 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 3.C1 — partial: Senior leadership is identified.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted evidence states that the co-owners (Salwa Rahman and Emad Husni Taysir Alsidawi) are identified as operators, though broader governance is not public.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   5. Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The accepted evidence publicly identifies the co-owners as operators, though principal governance roles are not fully identifiable.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted 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. 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. 1 check had partial support, and 13 checks remained unverified.

   4.54% 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.

   0.8168 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

   0.8168 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.7714 of 18 points. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 13 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 4.54 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.8168 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.8168 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   5. Requirement 4.C5 — partial: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. The process refers to a trained auditor without identifying qualifications, authorization, monitoring, or assignments.

      Public sources: Source 1

   6. Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   7. Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. 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. No public evidence found in the accepted 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. 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. 1 check had partial support, and 10 checks remained unverified.

   5.29% 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.

   0.9529 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

   0.9529 of 16.2000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.0000 of 1.0800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.9000 of 18 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 10 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 5.29 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.9529 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.9529 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 5.C1 — partial: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.

      Evidence route: Public source. Basic Islamic slaughter requirements are stated, but no named qualified religious authority or final halal decision mechanism is public.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   5. Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   6. Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted 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. 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, 1 check had partial support, and 13 checks remained unverified.

   6.18% 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.

   0.8647 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

   0.4447 of 12.6000 points.

   Public-accountability contribution

   0.4200 of 0.8400 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 1.4700 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 1 partial, 13 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 6.18 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.4447 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 0.8647 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 6.C1 — not verified: Application and application review are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. 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. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 6.C4 — partial: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.

      Evidence route: Public source. The certification process involves an on-site facility audit to observe the slaughter process, verify the Halal Assurance Plan, check for segregation and sanitation, and review record-keeping.

      Public sources: Source 1

   5. Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   6. Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   7. Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   8. Requirement 6.C8 — not verified: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   9. Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   10. Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 6.O1 — not verified: The current certification system implements each applicable control.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 6.P1 — fulfilled: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.

      Evidence route: Public source. The program outlines a five-step certification process that includes a Halal Assurance Plan and on-site reviews.

      Public sources: Source 1

   2. Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted 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. 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

   1. Requirement 7.C1 — not verified: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   5. Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   6. Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted 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. 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. 1 check had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.

   5.29% 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.

   0.1588 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

   0.0000 of 0.1800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.1500 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 5.29 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.1588 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.1588 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 8.C1 — not verified: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 8.C2 — partial: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. General certification scope and core rules are stated without a named, versioned standard or complete scheme boundaries.

      Public sources: Source 1

   3. Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   5. Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   6. Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 8.O1 — not verified: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 8.P1 — not verified: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted 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. 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. 4 checks had partial support, and 16 checks remained unverified.

   0.86% 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.

   0.0686 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

   0.0686 of 0.4800 points.

   Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.1714 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 4 partial, 16 not independently verified.

   Why this metric earned 0.86 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

   Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0686 public accountability = 0.0686 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

   A. Control assurance · 60 percent

   1. Requirement 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

   1. Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   C. Public evidence · 15 percent

   1. Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   2. Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   3. Requirement 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   4. Requirement 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   5. Requirement 9.P5 — partial: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.

      Evidence route: Public source. Public disclosure outlines a requirement for a Muslim slaughterperson.

      Public sources: Source 1

   6. Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   7. Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   8. Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.

      Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   9. Requirement 9.P9 — partial: Pork and animal derivatives.

      Evidence route: Public source. Public disclosure requires complete separation from non-halal products.

      Public sources: Source 1

   10. Requirement 9.P10 — not verified: Alcohol and ethanol.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   11. Requirement 9.P11 — not verified: Processing aids and ingredient sources.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

   12. Requirement 9.P12 — partial: Shared lines and cross-contact.

       Evidence route: Public source. Public disclosure mentions checking for segregation during the on-site facility audit.

       Public sources: Source 1

   13. Requirement 9.P13 — partial: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.

       Evidence route: Public source. Public disclosure mentions checking for sanitation during the on-site facility audit.

       Public sources: Source 1

   14. Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted 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.

10. 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. 1 check had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.

    6.35% 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.

    0.1906 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

    0.0000 of 0.1800 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.1800 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 6.35 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings

    Arithmetic: 0.1906 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.1906 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.

    A. Control assurance · 60 percent

    1. Requirement 10.C1 — partial: Certificate templates contain required issuer, holder, site, product or activity scope, identifier, issue date, expiry date, and authorization.

       Evidence route: Public source. One-year validity is stated, but no public certificate sample, directory, or status mechanism was located.

       Public sources: Source 1

    2. Requirement 10.C2 — not verified: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    3. Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    4. Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    5. Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    2. Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    3. Requirement 10.O3 — not verified: Directory and status records are maintained.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 10.P1 — not verified: Consumers can verify current certificate status through a working HTTPS route, searchable directory, QR destination, or equivalent accessible mechanism.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    2. Requirement 10.P2 — not verified: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted 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.

11. 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. None of the 10 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

    10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.

    0.0000 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

    0.0000 of 0.0600 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0000 of 1 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 10 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

    1. Requirement 11.C1 — not verified: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    2. Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    3. Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    4. Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    5. Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    2. Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    3. Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 11.P1 — not verified: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    2. Requirement 11.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted 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.

12. 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. 1 check had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.

    1.50% 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.

    0.0300 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

    0.0000 of 1.8000 points.

    Public-accountability contribution

    0.0300 of 0.1200 points.

    Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.0750 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 8 not independently verified.

    Why this metric earned 1.50 percent: 9 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

    1. Requirement 12.C1 — not verified: The HCB defines competence and resource needs for each scope.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    2. Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    3. Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    4. Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

    1. Requirement 12.O1 — not verified: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    2. Requirement 12.O2 — not verified: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    3. Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.

       Evidence route: Public source. No public evidence found in the accepted baseline.

    C. Public evidence · 15 percent

    1. Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.

       Evidence route: Public source. The program publicly discloses its current service scope (Texas and Louisiana) and its accountable contact information through its website, but operating history is not independently demonstrated.

       Public sources: Source 1

    2. 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. No public evidence found in the accepted 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.

Credibility Score interpretation

• Model B assigns 4.1812 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 0.8786 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.

Organization, oversight, and scope

This assessment covers the halal certification program run by Hijrah Ranch LLC in Texas [1]. It reviews the organization’s published standards, certification process, and the requirements it says facilities must meet for halal approval [1] [2].

The reviewed record does not independently demonstrate the program’s operating history, number of certificates issued, or available resources [1]. No public certificate directory or way to check the status of active clients was located, which limits the ability to confirm the program’s current certification reach [1].

This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology to review evidence. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard and does not make a religious ruling about every certificate or product.

Published certification rules and stated positions

Hijrah Ranch LLC publicly states some core halal requirements. These include a Muslim slaughterperson and the correct invocation (Tasmiyah) for each animal [2]. The program also requires complete separation from non-halal products [2].

Its certification process includes an on-site facility audit. The audit is described as checking the slaughter process, the Halal Assurance Plan, segregation and sanitation, and record-keeping [1]. The program characterizes this as a collaborative review rather than a strict inspection [1].

The organization does not publish a complete standard or scheme document with controlled versions [1]. Its public materials do not state its positions on mechanical poultry slaughter; Tasmiyah on mechanical lines; stunning and whether it is reversible; controls to ensure animals are alive at the cut; or processing aids [1].

The public materials also do not establish an independent religious authority responsible for final halal decisions [1]. They do not establish a separation between the audit role and the final certification decision either [1].

Score and evidence-based conclusion

The Hijrah Ranch LLC Halal Certification program describes basic halal requirements and a facility-review process, but the reviewed public record does not establish the structural transparency expected of a highly credible certification body [1] [2]. In particular, it did not establish a complete published standard, independent governance controls, or publicly verifiable certificate traceability for the program [1].

According to the review, improving its standing would require a clear published governance structure, separation of audit and decision-making roles, and a public way for consumers to check whether issued certificates are valid [1].

What evidence could change the remaining findings

This section explains what evidence could support a higher score for Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification. It does not mean a control is absent simply because the reviewed public record did not establish it. Any submission must match the exact assessed entity, state its dates and scope, and show who implemented it and made decisions.

Supporting records can be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Authenticated private records may support evidence that controls or operations are in place, but they do not count as public-transparency evidence unless the organization makes the material information public.

• Metric 1 — Legal identity and operating status: A current, authoritative registry or regulator record for Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification that shows the 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 Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification that identifies 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 Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification governing-body roster and organizational chart that identifies accountable leaders, their roles, the basis for their appointment or authority, management responsibilities, and organization-level accountability for certification decisions.
• Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record that identifies 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 Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification records identifying the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointment, the jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, organization-level authority, and documented participation in final halal decisions.
• Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification audit procedure, with corroborating recent files, showing application and scope review, ingredient and process evaluation, on-site work, halal-specific observations, findings, corrective actions, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
• Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification policy on impartiality and separation of decisions, plus implementation records identifying conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decisions.
• Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope: A current Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification standard or scheme record stating its version, effective date, covered sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence rules, certificate scope, and responsible issuing organization.
• Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current public Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification declaration or equivalent methodology that covers the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, precedence for supplementary schemes, certificate communication, and the public verification route.
• Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification certificate directory or verification method that shows the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls on use and misuse of the mark.
• Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification procedure for complaints, appeals, and corrections that identifies ways to submit them, acknowledgement and response timing, independent review, records, re-examination, corrective action, and protections against retaliation or equivalent fairness safeguards.
• Metric 12 — Operating history and demonstrated capacity: Current, independently verifiable Hijrah Ranch Halal Certification operating records showing its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and personnel capacity that matches that workload.

Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body

The Hijrah Ranch LLC Halal Certification program, or another affected party, can submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is assessed under the same methodology whether it would raise or lower the Credibility Score.

An authorized representative can also use Claim this certification body. The person claiming it must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity. That authority must be verified with qualifying documents and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim stays private and pending until reviewed; it does not give editorial control, reveal other submissions, or automatically change an article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.

A correction request should identify the exact entity, the statement and metric at issue, the source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and the requested correction. Publication does not depend on a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.

Frequently asked questions

What score did the assessment give Hijrah Ranch LLC?

The assessment gives Hijrah Ranch LLC a 5% Credibility Score and Grade F. It reflects major gaps in public governance, disclosure of a complete standard, and certificate traceability.

Does Hijrah Ranch LLC require hand slaughter?

The program says each animal must be slaughtered by a Muslim slaughterperson with the correct invocation (Tasmiyah). Its public materials do not state its position on mechanical poultry slaughter.

Is Hijrah Ranch LLC accredited by an independent oversight body?

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization.

Can I check a Hijrah Ranch LLC halal certificate online?

The review did not locate a public certificate directory or an online way to check the status of active clients.

What basic halal requirements does Hijrah Ranch LLC publish?

The program publicly states that it requires a Muslim slaughterperson, the correct invocation (Tasmiyah), humane treatment, and complete separation from non-halal products.

References

1. Hijrah Ranch: HOME
2. Hijrah Ranch: Blog / Halal Certification

Related audit-readiness guidance

• How USDHS Calculates a Halal Certification Body Credibility Score
• 2026 U.S. Halal Certification Bodies Ranked by Credibility Score
• American Halal Foundation Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 96% Credibility Score, Grade A

Browse all USDHS Insights