Organization and accreditation scope
Halal certification depends on independent checks of religious and operational requirements. A person verifying the authority behind a halal product needs to understand how approval was reached, which accountable system reviewed the evidence, and who held responsibility for the audit, Islamic review, and final certification decision.
The organization assessed here is The Halal Approval LLC. The current Emirates National Accreditation System (ENAS) directory lists it as a Houston halal product certification body. ENAS record NAH 020 names the exact assessed entity, The Halal Approval LLC, classifies it under UAE.S 2055-2, and lists active accreditation from November 25, 2025 through November 24, 2028 [10] [11]. This means an independent accreditor has vetted the organization within that defined scope. The accreditation therefore supports competence within the verified scope and counts as one of the five independent accreditation authorities used in the national comparison. CICOT and other market acceptance are recognition, not additional accreditation.
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
The Halal Approval LLC Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 92% Credibility Score · Grade A · Strongly substantiated
Moderate confidence. The Halal Approval LLC receives a 92% Credibility Score (Grade A) in this assessment. A current independent accreditation is the main basis for the strong finding on the organization’s capability within the defined scope the accreditor reviewed. One qualifying independent authority and the available public record provide the remaining support. The deductions reflect limited accreditation breadth and incomplete public accountability information, rather than a finding that internal controls are absent. Overall, the reviewed record strongly supports the organization’s capability in the accredited scope, while leaving important public information less fully established.
See the three numerical score components
- Competence assurance
- 90.0000 of 90
- Accreditation breadth
- 0.8000 of 4
- Public accountability
- 0.7500 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 91.5500 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 92%.
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 90.00%
- 2. Ownership and control 90.00%
- 3. Accountable leadership and governance 91.50%
- 4. Qualified personnel 90.00%
- 5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 90.00%
- 6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 93.00%
- 7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 90.00%
- 8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 91.50%
- 9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 90.00%
- 10. Certificate traceability and mark control 91.50%
- 11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 90.00%
- 12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 91.50%
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
MoIAT registration and CICOT recognition
The Halal Approval LLC holds current UAE MoIAT registration and CICOT recognition, and actively certifies U.S. establishments such as Creek Ranch Inc.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #6, #8, #10, #12
Scoring treatment: Supports limited operational evidence for facility verification and operating capacity.
Evidence boundary: Recognition establishes operating acceptance but does not automatically transfer implementation assurance.
What needs caution
Exact personnel, ownership, and Islamic authorities remain not publicly verified
The public record does not provide U.S. leadership, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, or complete ownership details beyond a single contact name.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #2, #3, #4, #5
Scoring treatment: Limits public transparency and operational scores in ownership, governance, and personnel competence.
Evidence boundary: Missing ownership and personnel evidence is not proof of invalidity.
Sources:
Independent accreditation examined
An independent accreditation body reviewed this organization against a certification standard for the scope and dates listed below. That supports the organization’s competence within that defined scope, but it does not make every internal detail public or cover work outside the credential.
Emirates National Accreditation System (ENAS) · NAH 020
UAE.S 2055-2 halal product certification-body accreditation. current. 2025-11-25 to 2028-11-24.
Scope: Halal product certification by the exact Houston entity within the categories and locations on the current ENAS directory and certificate.
View the requirement mapping
Expressly assessed requirement IDs: No automatic mapping applied.
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. 1 check was fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.
90.00% 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.
4.5000 of 5 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 4.5000 of 4.5000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 1.0625 of 5 points. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 1 partial, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 90.00 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 4.5000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 4.5000 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. Public regulator and foreign-recognition records identify The Halal Approval LLC as a named certification entity: the UAE Ministry of Industry and Advanced Technology directory (MoIAT) is listed as a registration route (https://moiat.gov.ae/) and the CICOT foreign halal certification-body record explicitly lists The Halal Approval LLC (https://www.halal.or.th/en/foreign_halal_cb/detail/152), providing direct public evidence that the issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
Requirement 1.C2 — not verified: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 1.C3 — not verified: Every public operating name, DBA, division, or brand used for certification is connected to the issuer.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 1.C4 — not verified: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 1.O1 — partial: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
Evidence route: Public source. MoIAT and CICOT records identify The Halal Approval LLC in the U.S. However, a DC revocation record and lack of Maryland SDAT confirmation leave exact current active legal standing ambiguous.
Requirement 1.O2 — not verified: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 1.P1 — not verified: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 1.P2 — not verified: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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.
90.00% 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.
7.2000 of 8 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 7.2000 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 90.00 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 7.2000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 7.2000 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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 2.P2 — not verified: Private percentages, taxpayer data, signatures, and personal addresses need not be published when authoritative evidence establishes them.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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. 2 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
91.50% 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.
12.8100 of 14 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 12.6000 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 91.50 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 12.6000 competence + 0.2100 public accountability = 12.8100 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 3.C1 — partial: Senior leadership is identified.
Evidence route: Recognition record. CICOT and USDA FAS records name Adnan Ul Hasan as the contact for the U.S. branch, but full leadership structure is not verified.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. One U.S. contact is named in public records, but full leadership structure and management responsibility are not verified.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 3.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who is accountable for halal decisions and certification decisions.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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.
90.00% 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.
16.2000 of 18 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
- 16.2000 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 90.00 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 16.2000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 16.2000 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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 4.P3 — not verified: Private personnel files, degree numbers, and every assignment record need not be published when accreditation verifies competence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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.
90.00% 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.
16.2000 of 18 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
- 16.2000 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 90.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 16.2000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 16.2000 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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 5.P1 — not verified: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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. 4 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.
93.00% 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.
13.0200 of 14 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 12.6000 of 12.6000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.4200 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 4.7367 of 14 points. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 4 fulfilled, 2 partial, 9 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 93.00 percent: 15 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 12.6000 competence + 0.4200 public accountability = 13.0200 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 6.C1 — fulfilled: Application and application review are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The published General Halal Certification Procedure (May 2025) documents the application process and application review controls (application intake, document review, scope determination), demonstrating that application and application-review controls are defined and publicly available.
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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 6.C4 — not verified: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 6.C6 — fulfilled: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
Evidence route: Public source. The General Halal Certification Procedure (May 2025) includes requirements for audit reporting and nonconformity handling (report issuance, recording nonconformities and corrective actions), providing public documentation that audit reports and nonconformities are to be documented.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 6.C8 — fulfilled: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. The General Halal Certification Procedure and the General Flowchart for Halal Certification describe surveillance and recertification stages (periodic surveillance, follow-up, recertification steps and timing), demonstrating that surveillance and recertification controls are defined and publicly available.
Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 6.O1 — partial: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
Evidence route: Public source. MoIAT records confirm U.S. facility certification (Creek Ranch Inc.), providing some operational evidence of facility verification.
Requirement 6.O2 — partial: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
Evidence route: Public source. MoIAT records confirm U.S. facility certification (Creek Ranch Inc.), providing some operational evidence of facility verification.
Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 6.P1 — fulfilled: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
Evidence route: Public source. The organisation publishes a General Halal Certification Procedure (May 2025) and a General Flowchart for Halal Certification (Aug 2024) which together describe the certification pathway and principal stages (application, assessment/audit, review, decision, surveillance), providing a publicly understandable certification pathway.
Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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. 1 check was fully supported, and 10 checks remained unverified.
90.00% 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.
5.4000 of 6 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 5.4000 of 5.4000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.3600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Impartiality, conflicts, and independence earns 0.6000 of 6 points. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 10 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 90.00 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 5.4000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 5.4000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 7.C1 — fulfilled: An impartiality policy and risk process exist.
Evidence route: Public source. An Impartiality and Confidentiality Policy is publicly published (Impartiality-and-Confidentiality-Policy.pdf, Aug 2024), providing explicit public evidence that an impartiality policy and associated risk/process commitments exist.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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. 4 checks had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.
91.50% 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.
2.7450 of 3 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 2.7000 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0450 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.6000 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 4 partial, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 91.50 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 2.7000 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 2.7450 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
Requirement 8.C1 — partial: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
Evidence route: Recognition record. MoIAT and CICOT records confirm the scope includes UAE/Thailand standards.
Requirement 8.C2 — partial: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
Evidence route: Recognition record. MoIAT and CICOT records confirm the scope includes slaughtering.
Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 8.O1 — partial: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
Evidence route: Recognition record. Certification of Creek Ranch Inc. confirms slaughtering scope.
Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 8.P1 — partial: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The parent website lists multiple industries, but the specific U.S. branch scope is not detailed publicly outside regulatory directories.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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. None of the 20 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
90.00% 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.
7.2000 of 8 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 7.2000 of 7.2000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0000 of 0.4800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Public certification criteria and position disclosure earns 0.0000 of 8 points. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 20 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 90.00 percent: 20 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 7.2000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 7.2000 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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P5 — not verified: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P9 — not verified: Pork and animal derivatives.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P10 — not verified: Alcohol and ethanol.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P11 — not verified: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P12 — not verified: Shared lines and cross-contact.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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. 1 check was fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
91.50% 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.
2.7450 of 3 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 2.7000 of 2.7000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0450 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.4725 of 3 points. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 1 partial, 8 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 91.50 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 2.7000 competence + 0.0450 public accountability = 2.7450 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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 10.C2 — not verified: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 10.C4 — fulfilled: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
Evidence route: Public source. A THAG Halal Mark Specification (May 2025) is publicly available (THAG-Halal-Mark-Specification.pdf) that sets out controls for the halal mark (specification, use, reproduction and misuse protections), demonstrating publicly documented mark licensing and control measures.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 10.O3 — not verified: Directory and status records are maintained.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. External regulator or recognition listings do not establish that the HCB maintains its own directory or register through a controlled update process.
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. Regulatory directories provide some traceability, though no public certificate directory is available on the U.S. or parent website.
Requirement 10.P2 — not verified: Public verification shows enough information to distinguish holder, scope, site or product, identifier, and validity.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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. None of the 10 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
90.00% 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.
0.9000 of 1 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 0.9000 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 90.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.9000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.9000 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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 11.P1 — not verified: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 11.P2 — not verified: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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. 1 check was fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 6 checks remained unverified.
91.50% 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.
1.8300 of 2 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No current exact-entity accreditation mapping supplies automatic credit in this metric; any points come from direct evidence.
- Competence contribution
- 1.8000 of 1.8000 points.
- Public-accountability contribution
- 0.0300 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.3250 of 2 points. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 2 partial, 6 not independently verified.
Why this metric earned 91.50 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.8000 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 1.8300 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: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
Requirement 12.O1 — partial: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
Evidence route: Recognition record. Recent certification activity is verified via MoIAT records, demonstrating current capacity. CICOT recognition is current.
Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
Evidence route: Public source. Recent certification activity is verified via MoIAT records (Creek Ranch Inc.), demonstrating active operations.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
Evidence route: Public source. The U.S. branch is active but detailed operating history and capacity are not fully public.
Public sources: Source 1
Requirement 12.P2 — not verified: Confidential client volumes, payroll, and workload files need not be published when current accreditation verifies capacity.
Evidence route: Not independently verified. Missing evidence means not_verified, not misconduct.
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
- The relatively strongest directly documented findings concern halal-specific audit and certification controls.
- Legal identity and standing are also among the relatively strongest documented areas.
- The review also has comparatively stronger support for standards, scheme, and certification scope.
What should make you cautious
- The review did not independently establish the personnel evidence it sought; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
- The review did not independently establish the evidence it sought on Islamic authority and halal decision rights; the requirement table identifies the affected items and evidence routes.
- The review did not independently establish much of the evidence it sought on 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 qualified personnel?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify islamic authority and halal decision rights?
- What current, verifiable records would clarify legal identity and standing?
View the original requirement-level questions
- What independently verifiable evidence, if any, would materially change the finding for requirement 1.C2 under the published methodology?
- 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.P1 under the published methodology?
Credibility Score interpretation
- Model B assigns 90.0000 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.8000 of 4 proportional accreditation-breadth points, and 0.7500 of 6 public-accountability points.
- Every qualifying current independent exact-entity accreditation authority contributes proportionally against the five-authority national benchmark. 1 qualifying authority contributes 0.8000 breadth points; overlapping requirements are not counted twice.
- 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.
Conclusion
The Halal Approval LLC receives a 92% Credibility Score, Grade A. Current ENAS accreditation NAH 020 supports the competence finding for the exact Houston entity within the verified scope. The remaining deductions concern accreditation breadth and public accountability: the reviewed public record does not yet fully identify U.S. ownership, responsible personnel, Islamic decision authority, governing criteria, or a complete public certificate-status route. These limits in public evidence are not treated as proof that the accredited controls do not exist.
This accountability assessment uses the published USDHS methodology as a framework for reviewing evidence. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling about every certificate or product.
Public certification rules and stated halal positions
The disclosure review asks a question separate from accreditation: can an ordinary consumer identify the standard or scheme, its current version, the approving authority, and the important halal positions that govern this body’s certifications? The review did not verify responsive public criteria; at most, it found a general claim to follow halal or Shariah.
On governing documents, scope, and certificate communication, the reviewed sources establish only that the certifier discloses the general industries it serves.
The remaining questions could not be classified with confidence because the review did not find a publicly disclosed internal governing standard or specific methodology; a current version or effective date, because no standard is published; a specific religious or jurisprudential basis; information about supplementary schemes and which rules take precedence; information about certificate-level position communication; or a public certificate or client-verification register on the website. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the organization has no internal rule.
The remaining questions could not be classified with confidence because the review did not find publicly disclosed specific criteria for mechanical poultry slaughter, mechanical-line tasmiyyah, stunning and reversibility, alive-at-cut control, minimum vessel requirements, or the slaughter person and supervision. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the organization has no internal rule.
The remaining questions could not be classified with confidence because the review did not find publicly disclosed specific criteria for pork and animal derivatives, alcohol and ethanol, processing aids and ingredient sources, shared lines and cross-contact, or sanitation or ritual cleansing. This is a limit of the public evidence and does not prove that the organization has no internal rule.
This disclosure measure considers whether the public can understand the stated position, not whether the position is the most restrictive one. A position disclosed within a recognized scholarly range is not penalized simply because another body follows a different view.
Evidence that could address the remaining gaps
This section describes the evidence that could support a higher score for The Halal Approval LLC. It does not say that a control is absent merely 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 was responsible for implementation and decision-making.
Records may be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records can support findings about controls or how work is carried out when they can be authenticated, but they do not support 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 The Halal Approval LLC could show its 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 The Halal Approval LLC could identify 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 The Halal Approval LLC governing-body roster and organization chart could identify accountable leaders, their roles, their appointment or authority basis, management responsibilities, and organization-level accountability for certification decisions.
- Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: A current The Halal Approval LLC personnel roster or independently assessed controlled record could identify 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 The Halal Approval LLC records could identify the Islamic-affairs experts or decision body, their qualifications and appointment, the jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, organization-level authority, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
- Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A current controlled The Halal Approval LLC audit procedure and corroborating recent files could show 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 The Halal Approval LLC policy on impartiality and separation of decisions, along with implementation records, could show conflict review, separation from consultancy, oversight membership, and separation among audit, technical review, Islamic review, and the certification decision.
- Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope: A current The Halal Approval LLC standard or scheme record could identify 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 The Halal Approval LLC declaration or equivalent methodology could cover the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, precedence of supplementary schemes, certificate communication, and a public verification route.
- Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public The Halal Approval LLC certificate directory or verification method could show a certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls on mark use and misuse.
- Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public The Halal Approval LLC procedure could explain how to submit complaints, appeals, and corrections; acknowledgement and response timing; independent review; records; re-examination; corrective action; and protection against retaliation or equivalent fairness safeguards.
- Metric 12 — Operating history and demonstrated capacity: Current independently verifiable The Halal Approval LLC operating records could show its timeline, active clients or certificates, sectors and locations served, workload, surveillance activity, and personnel capacity suited to that workload.
Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body
The Halal Approval LLC 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 person making the claim must document their identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity. That authority must be verified through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until review; it gives no editorial control, does not disclose other submissions, and does not 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 receiving a response, and no organization has a private veto over a documented finding.
Frequently asked questions
Why did the assessment give The Halal Approval LLC a 92% Credibility Score and Grade A?
The current ENAS accreditation NAH 020 for the exact Houston entity is the main basis for the competence finding within ENAS’s verified scope. An independent accreditor has vetted the organization within that defined scope. One qualifying authority provides limited accreditation breadth, and the available public record provides limited additional accountability evidence. The remaining deductions concern breadth and public accountability.
Is The Halal Approval LLC accredited right now?
Yes. The current ENAS directory lists The Halal Approval LLC in Houston under NAH 020 as a halal product certification body under UAE.S 2055-2, with active dates from November 25, 2025 through November 24, 2028. This means an independent accreditor has vetted the organization within that defined scope.
Does a low score make every certificate invalid?
No. This assessment examines structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials, not the religious validity of particular products. It does not rule that every certificate is invalid.
Why does the review not include private documents?
The methodology relies on public records and publicly verifiable evidence, while still allowing the organization to submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.
What could improve the certifier’s score?
The organization could gain additional breadth support through more qualifying independent accreditors. It could also gain public-accountability support by publishing clear U.S. leadership, ownership, Islamic decision authority, governing criteria, and a complete public certificate-status route.
References
- MoIAT Directory
- CICOT, The Halal Approval LLC Foreign Halal Certification Body Record
- The Halal Approval Global, United States Branch
- Open Data
- Halal Certification
- IMPARTIALITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY
- GENERAL HALAL CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE
- GENERAL FLOWCHART FOR HALAL CERTIFICATION
- THAG HALAL MARK SPECIFICATION
- Emirates National Accreditation System directory, The Halal Approval LLC NAH 020
- ENAS accreditation certificate, The Halal Approval LLC NAH 020
View the controlling HIPS publication