United Ulama Council of USA Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 5% Credibility Score, Grade F

Use caution with United Ulama Council of USA Inc.; the record shows current activity but leaves its approval method and accountable people largely unexplained.

Evidence-review desk with a New York public-registration ledger, two establishment records, a licensing list, and unresolved certification-control files. — photorealistic editorial by USDHS Editorial Studio. Generated editorial artwork; depicted people or organizations are not identified as USDHS representatives.

Quick Summary

Score: 5%
Grade: F
Evidence result: Insufficiently substantiated

Use caution before relying on this certifier: the review gives United Ulama Council of USA Inc. a 5% score and Grade F because the public record supports current halal-licensing activity but leaves the approval system largely unexplained. Its website, a named founder and president, and two New York government-hosted establishment registrations are the strongest known facts. The result is low because this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization and did not establish its governing standard, review method, qualified personnel, Islamic review, final decision authority, certificate-status controls, or full complaint-and-appeal process. Those gaps make it hard to understand how an approval was reached or checked.

Why a halal licensing name is not enough

A halal-conscious customer may see a licensing name on a wall, website, or public registration and reasonably assume that someone has checked the ingredients, facility, process, people, records, and religious requirements behind the approval. But the name alone does not show how the approval was reached or who made it. Accountability requires an identifiable method: the criteria used, the evidence examined, the qualifications of the people doing the work, the religious review, and the authority that made the final halal and certification decisions.

This distinction matters when a certification body is active but publishes little about its certification system. A current client list can show that an organization is operating, but it cannot replace evidence of what was audited, which standard was used, who reviewed the findings, or how the certificate is controlled after it is issued.

Entity and current certification activity

United Ulama Council of USA Inc. is the operating name used by a New York nonprofit religious-community organization. Its first-party website says that it offers halal food and products licensing and lists several establishments. The same page names Mufty Hafiz Luthfur Rahman Qasimy as founder and president. An independent Candid profile identifies the same nonprofit organization in New York and links to the same website. The reviewed public record could not independently verify a founding date, a complete board or membership roster, governing interests, or an organizational chart for the certification program. [1] [2]

New York's Department of Agriculture and Markets registration system names United Ulama Council of USA Inc. as the certifier for HD Halal Diner Inc. and Labbaik Supermarket Inc. Both establishments entered monthly visit information. These government-hosted entries support current activity that can be linked to the organization, but other statements in the entries are treated as information supplied by the establishments, not as independent findings by New York State. [3]

The reviewed sources consistently use the same organization name, but they show different New York street addresses. The first-party website does not explain whether either address is a current principal office, a branch, or a previous location. No public certificate was found to check the exact issuer, holder, site, scope, identifier, issue date, or expiry date.

Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment

United Ulama Council of USA Inc. halal food and products licensing program Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 5% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Moderate confidence. United Ulama Council of USA Inc. receives a 5% Credibility Score and Grade F in this review. Its website and two New York government-hosted establishment registrations link the organization to current halal-food and products licensing activity. This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. The limited score reflects only the controls and operating evidence that the reviewed record supports. Publicly available information does not explain the accountable approval method, the evidence reviewed, the qualifications of the people involved, the religious review, or who has authority to make the final halal and certification decision.

See the three numerical score components

Competence assurance: 4.0068 of 90
Accreditation breadth: 0.0000 of 4
Public accountability: 0.7650 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 4.7718 out of 100, ordinarily displayed as 5%.

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 42.88%
2. Ownership and control 0.00%
3. Accountable leadership and governance 14.21%
4. Qualified personnel 0.00%
5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights 1.50%
6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls 0.00%
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence 0.00%
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope 0.00%
9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure 0.00%
10. Certificate traceability and mark control 4.41%
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections 3.00%
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity 10.32%

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

Current attributable halal-licensing activity
The first-party website offers halal food and products licensing and lists establishments; New York's government-hosted registry names the organization as certifier for two current establishments.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #10, #12
Scoring treatment: Supports exact-entity identity, current client activity, and limited directory evidence.
Evidence boundary: The registration data was entered by establishments. It is not accreditation and does not independently establish the certification method or every certificate's validity.
Sources: [1] [3]

What needs caution

Halal approval method and decision authority are not publicly established
The reviewed public record does not identify a controlled standard, certification-specific auditors, technical review, Islamic review, recorded findings, or final halal and certification decision authority.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8
Scoring treatment: Limits competence and public-accountability credit to the narrow evidence actually available.
Evidence boundary: The finding records an evidence gap. It is not proof that no internal method exists or a determination of any particular certificate's validity.
Sources: [1] [3]
No current comprehensive exact-entity accreditation verified
The reviewed record did not establish a current comprehensive independent accreditation for United Ulama Council of USA Inc. and its halal food and products licensing program.
How this affected the detailed record
Categories: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, #12
Scoring treatment: No automatic 90-point competence determination and no accreditation-breadth point apply.
Evidence boundary: A New York establishment registration is not accreditation. The finding does not foreclose a later exact-entity credential submission.
Sources: [1] [2] [3]

How USDHS calculated the score and grade

Model B totals competence assurance from 0 to 90, proportional current exact-entity accreditation breadth from 0 to 4, and public accountability from 0 to 6. A current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation establishes competence within verified scope; affirmative contradictions reduce it requirement by requirement. Every qualifying authority contributes 0.8000 breadth points against the five-authority national benchmark, capped at four. Public accountability remains separate. The 137 requirement statuses remain visible as the evidence record. Classification bands: A, 90 to 100, strongly substantiated; B, 80 to 89, substantiated; C, 70 to 79, partially substantiated; D, 60 to 69, material gaps; F, 0 to 59, insufficiently substantiated.

Detailed evidence

Why each category received its result

1. Legal identity and standing
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the public can identify the organization behind the certificate and confirm that it is legally connected to the work. 3 checks were fully supported, 2 checks had partial support, and 3 checks remained unverified.
42.88% 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.
2.1441 of 5 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
1.9191 of 4.5000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.2250 of 0.3000 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Legal identity and standing earns 2.3750 of 5 points in the underlying requirement record. Of 8 enumerated subrequirements, 3 fulfilled, 2 partial, 3 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
Why this metric earned 42.88 percent: 8 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.9191 competence + 0.2250 public accountability = 2.1441 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 1.C1 — fulfilled: The certificate issuer is a resolvable legal entity.
  Evidence route: First-party, government-hosted, and independent public sources. The organization uses the exact operating name United Ulama Council of USA Inc. on its official website; an independent nonprofit profile identifies the same incorporated entity; and New York's government-hosted halal-establishment registry names that entity as the certifier for two establishments.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
2. Requirement 1.C2 — fulfilled: The entity is active or otherwise legally authorized to operate.
  Evidence route: Independent nonprofit profile and current government-hosted registration. An independent nonprofit profile identifies the exact entity's current federal tax-exempt classification, while the first-party website and New York's government-hosted registry show current operating activity under the same name. No taxpayer identifier is reproduced in this assessment.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
3. 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. The reviewed record establishes the operating name and current public activity, but it does not independently establish this additional entity, relationship, or certificate-specific identity control. This is an evidence limitation, not proof that the control is absent or that a certificate is invalid.
4. Requirement 1.C4 — not verified: Material parent, subsidiary, affiliate, and predecessor relationships affecting certification authority are documented.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record establishes the operating name and current public activity, but it does not independently establish this additional entity, relationship, or certificate-specific identity control. This is an evidence limitation, not proof that the control is absent or that a certificate is invalid.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 1.O1 — not verified: Current certificates, contracts, or accreditation identify the same accountable issuer.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record establishes the operating name and current public activity, but it does not independently establish this additional entity, relationship, or certificate-specific identity control. This is an evidence limitation, not proof that the control is absent or that a certificate is invalid.
2. Requirement 1.O2 — partial: The operating location and jurisdiction correspond to the entity or a documented branch.
  Evidence route: Independent nonprofit profile and government-hosted registration. The independent nonprofit profile and New York registration rows place the organization in New York, but the public records show different street addresses and the first-party website does not document whether either address is the current principal office or a branch.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 1.P1 — fulfilled: The public can identify the accountable issuer and operating name.
  Evidence route: First-party and government-hosted public sources. The first-party website publicly identifies United Ulama Council of USA Inc. as the organization offering halal food and products licensing, and New York's registry attributes two establishments' halal certification to the same organization.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 1.P2 — partial: The website, certificate, and public registry do not present materially conflicting issuer identities.
  Evidence route: First-party, government-hosted, and independent public sources. The reviewed sources consistently use the United Ulama Council of USA Inc. name, but no public certificate was located and the public records show different street addresses without a documented branch or address-change explanation.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
2. Ownership and control
What this means in plain English: This category asks who ultimately owns or controls the organization and whether related interests are clearly identified. None of the 9 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
9 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
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 in the underlying requirement record. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 0 partial, 9 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
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: Not independently verified. A named founder and president establishes organizational leadership, not the complete nonprofit members, board, voting rights, governing interests, related entities, or controlling structure. The reviewed record did not independently establish this ownership-and-control requirement.
2. Requirement 2.C2 — not verified: Ownership percentages or interests are established.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A named founder and president establishes organizational leadership, not the complete nonprofit members, board, voting rights, governing interests, related entities, or controlling structure. The reviewed record did not independently establish this ownership-and-control requirement.
3. Requirement 2.C3 — not verified: Voting, management, or equivalent control rights are established.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A named founder and president establishes organizational leadership, not the complete nonprofit members, board, voting rights, governing interests, related entities, or controlling structure. The reviewed record did not independently establish this ownership-and-control requirement.
4. Requirement 2.C4 — not verified: Related entities that could affect control are identified.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A named founder and president establishes organizational leadership, not the complete nonprofit members, board, voting rights, governing interests, related entities, or controlling structure. The reviewed record did not independently establish this ownership-and-control requirement.
5. Requirement 2.C5 — not verified: Ownership continuity is established or preserved through istiṣḥāb absent contrary evidence.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A named founder and president establishes organizational leadership, not the complete nonprofit members, board, voting rights, governing interests, related entities, or controlling structure. The reviewed record did not independently establish this ownership-and-control requirement.
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: Not independently verified. A named founder and president establishes organizational leadership, not the complete nonprofit members, board, voting rights, governing interests, related entities, or controlling structure. The reviewed record did not independently establish this ownership-and-control requirement.
2. Requirement 2.O2 — not verified: No current record contradicts the established owner or control structure.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A named founder and president establishes organizational leadership, not the complete nonprofit members, board, voting rights, governing interests, related entities, or controlling structure. The reviewed record did not independently establish this ownership-and-control requirement.
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: Not independently verified. A named founder and president establishes organizational leadership, not the complete nonprofit members, board, voting rights, governing interests, related entities, or controlling structure. The reviewed record did not independently establish this ownership-and-control requirement.
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: Not independently verified. A named founder and president establishes organizational leadership, not the complete nonprofit members, board, voting rights, governing interests, related entities, or controlling structure. The reviewed record did not independently establish this ownership-and-control requirement.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
3. Accountable leadership and governance
What this means in plain English: This category asks who is responsible for the certification program, how authority is assigned, and who is accountable for its decisions. 1 check was fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
14.21% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
1.9888 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
1.7788 of 12.6000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.2100 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Accountable leadership and governance earns 2.2050 of 14 points in the underlying requirement record. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 1 partial, 8 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
Why this metric earned 14.21 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 1.7788 competence + 0.2100 public accountability = 1.9888 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 3.C1 — fulfilled: Senior leadership is identified.
  Evidence route: First-party public source. The first-party website identifies Mufty Hafiz Luthfur Rahman Qasimy as founder and current president, satisfying identification of senior organizational leadership without inferring certification-decision authority or professional qualifications.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 3.C2 — not verified: Organizational structure and reporting lines are defined.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The president is publicly named, but the reviewed record did not establish the certification program's organizational structure, reporting lines, committees, assigned certification authority, management review, or implemented governance control required by this item.
3. Requirement 3.C3 — not verified: Certification decision authority is assigned.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The president is publicly named, but the reviewed record did not establish the certification program's organizational structure, reporting lines, committees, assigned certification authority, management review, or implemented governance control required by this item.
4. Requirement 3.C4 — not verified: Required governance, impartiality, and Islamic-affairs committees exist.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The president is publicly named, but the reviewed record did not establish the certification program's organizational structure, reporting lines, committees, assigned certification authority, management review, or implemented governance control required by this item.
5. Requirement 3.C5 — not verified: Senior management is accountable for the certification system.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The president is publicly named, but the reviewed record did not establish the certification program's organizational structure, reporting lines, committees, assigned certification authority, management review, or implemented governance control required by this item.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 3.O1 — not verified: Governance roles and committees are implemented and reviewed.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The president is publicly named, but the reviewed record did not establish the certification program's organizational structure, reporting lines, committees, assigned certification authority, management review, or implemented governance control required by this item.
2. Requirement 3.O2 — not verified: Certification decisions follow assigned authority.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The president is publicly named, but the reviewed record did not establish the certification program's organizational structure, reporting lines, committees, assigned certification authority, management review, or implemented governance control required by this item.
3. Requirement 3.O3 — not verified: Management review and internal oversight occur.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The president is publicly named, but the reviewed record did not establish the certification program's organizational structure, reporting lines, committees, assigned certification authority, management review, or implemented governance control required by this item.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 3.P1 — partial: Responsible leadership and principal governance roles are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: First-party public source. The president is publicly named, but the website does not identify the certification program's principal governance, impartiality, technical-review, Islamic-affairs, or certification-decision roles.
  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: Not independently verified. The president is publicly named, but the reviewed record did not establish the certification program's organizational structure, reporting lines, committees, assigned certification authority, management review, or implemented governance control required by this item.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
4. Qualified personnel
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the people doing audits, reviews, and decisions are identified, qualified, authorized, and kept competent. None of the 14 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
14 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0000 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Qualified personnel earns 0.0000 of 18 points in the underlying requirement record. Of 14 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 0 partial, 14 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 14 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.0000 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 4.C1 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for technical auditors.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
2. Requirement 4.C2 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for Islamic-affairs experts.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
3. Requirement 4.C3 — not verified: Competence criteria exist for reviewers and decision makers.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
4. Requirement 4.C4 — not verified: Muslim-status requirements are applied where the governing standard requires them.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
5. Requirement 4.C5 — not verified: Training, education, experience, and sector competence are defined.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
6. Requirement 4.C6 — not verified: Authorization, assignment, monitoring, and performance review are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
7. Requirement 4.C7 — not verified: External personnel and contractors satisfy the same applicable requirements.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 4.O1 — not verified: Current personnel records demonstrate qualification and authorization.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
2. Requirement 4.O2 — not verified: Audit teams contain the required technical and Islamic expertise.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
3. Requirement 4.O3 — not verified: Assignments match sector and scope competence.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
4. Requirement 4.O4 — not verified: Personnel performance and continuing competence are monitored.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 4.P1 — not verified: Responsible personnel roles are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
2. Requirement 4.P2 — not verified: A reasonable public qualification basis is available for principal technical and Islamic authorities.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
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: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish certification-specific auditors, technical reviewers, Islamic-affairs personnel, competence criteria, qualifications, authorizations, assignments, contractor controls, or continuing-performance review. No qualification is inferred from a name or title.
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. 1 check had partial support, and 10 checks remained unverified.
1.50% 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.
0.2700 of 18 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
0.0000 of 16.2000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.2700 of 1.0800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Islamic authority and halal decision rights earns 0.6750 of 18 points in the underlying requirement record. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 10 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
Why this metric earned 1.50 percent: 11 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.2700 public accountability = 0.2700 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 5.C1 — not verified: Qualified Muslim Islamic-affairs experts are appointed.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
2. Requirement 5.C2 — not verified: Muslim decision makers are used where required.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
3. Requirement 5.C3 — not verified: The Islamic-affairs committee has defined composition and authority.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
4. Requirement 5.C4 — not verified: Halal interpretations, disputed questions, and escalations have a controlled decision path.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
5. Requirement 5.C5 — not verified: Islamic authority is independent of sales and client pressure.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
6. Requirement 5.C6 — not verified: Final halal and certification decision rights are unambiguous.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 5.O1 — not verified: Islamic experts participate in audit, review, and decision functions as required.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
2. Requirement 5.O2 — not verified: Committee or expert decisions are documented and implemented.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
3. Requirement 5.O3 — not verified: Certification cannot be issued contrary to the authorized halal decision.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 5.P1 — partial: The principal Islamic authority or committee is publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: First-party and government-hosted registrant-attributed sources. The organization presents itself as a council of Islamic scholars and names its founder and president. Two New York registry entries, using information entered by the establishments, describe the organization as a religious-scholar authority mentored by imams and scholars. The reviewed record does not identify a certification-specific Islamic-affairs committee or state who exercises final halal-decision authority.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. Requirement 5.P2 — not verified: The public can understand who has final halal-decision authority.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The organization presents a religious-community identity, but the reviewed record did not establish this certification-specific appointment, qualification, committee, decision path, independence safeguard, documented participation, or final halal authority.
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. None of the 15 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
15 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 14 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
0.0000 of 12.6000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0000 of 0.8400 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Halal-specific audit and certification controls earns 0.0000 of 14 points in the underlying requirement record. Of 15 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 0 partial, 15 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 15 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 6.C1 — not verified: Application and application review are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
2. 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. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
3. Requirement 6.C3 — not verified: Stage-one and stage-two audits are used where applicable.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
4. Requirement 6.C4 — not verified: Audit teams perform halal-specific document and facility review.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
5. Requirement 6.C5 — not verified: Sampling, inspection, and accredited laboratory testing are controlled where applicable.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
6. Requirement 6.C6 — not verified: Audit reports and nonconformities are documented.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
7. Requirement 6.C7 — not verified: Independent review and certification decisions are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
8. Requirement 6.C8 — not verified: Surveillance and recertification are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
9. Requirement 6.C9 — not verified: Suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
10. Requirement 6.C10 — not verified: Outsourced work remains under HCB responsibility.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 6.O1 — not verified: The current certification system implements each applicable control.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
2. Requirement 6.O2 — not verified: Surveillance or accreditation assessment verifies continued implementation.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
3. Requirement 6.O3 — not verified: No affirmative evidence shows reliance on an unauthorized third party for the halal decision.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 6.P1 — not verified: The certification pathway and principal stages are publicly understandable.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
2. Requirement 6.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the governing scheme and certificate status consequences.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish the application, scope review, halal-specific audit, sampling, reporting, corrective-action, independent-review, decision, surveillance, recertification, withdrawal, or outsourced-work control required by this item.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence
What this means in plain English: This category asks how the organization prevents commercial interests, consulting work, or personal conflicts from controlling certification decisions. None of the 11 checks was independently verified in the reviewed record.
0.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
11 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0000 of 6 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
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 in the underlying requirement record. Of 11 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 0 partial, 11 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
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: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
2. Requirement 7.C2 — not verified: An impartiality committee or equivalent mechanism operates.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
3. Requirement 7.C3 — not verified: Consulting and certification conflicts are prohibited or controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
4. Requirement 7.C4 — not verified: Financial, commercial, and relationship threats are identified and mitigated.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
5. Requirement 7.C5 — not verified: Recusal and independent decision rules exist.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
6. Requirement 7.C6 — not verified: Outsourced and external personnel are subject to impartiality and confidentiality controls.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 7.O1 — not verified: Impartiality risks are reviewed periodically.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
2. Requirement 7.O2 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are documented.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
3. Requirement 7.O3 — not verified: Certification decisions remain independent of audit, sales, and consulting pressure.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 7.P1 — not verified: The impartiality commitment and complaint route are publicly accessible.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
2. Requirement 7.P2 — not verified: The public can identify the separation between certification and prohibited consulting.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not establish an impartiality policy, risk process, committee, conflict control, recusal rule, consulting separation, periodic review, or independent certification-decision safeguard for this item.
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. 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 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
0.0000 of 2.7000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0000 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Standards, scheme, and certification scope earns 0.0000 of 3 points in the underlying requirement record. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 0 partial, 10 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
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 8.C1 — not verified: Governing standard names and versions are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
2. Requirement 8.C2 — not verified: Accredited or claimed categories, activities, products, sites, and locations are defined.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
3. Requirement 8.C3 — not verified: Exclusions and limitations are defined.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
4. Requirement 8.C4 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
5. Requirement 8.C5 — not verified: A precedence rule resolves conflicts between base and supplementary requirements.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
6. Requirement 8.C6 — not verified: Clients receive the applicable version and scope.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 8.O1 — not verified: Certificates and audits use the correct current standard and scope.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
2. Requirement 8.O2 — not verified: Scope changes and version changes are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 8.P1 — not verified: The principal standard, version, category, and certification scope are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
2. Requirement 8.P2 — not verified: The public can determine whether supplementary schemes apply and how conflicts are resolved.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not identify a controlled governing halal standard, version, complete certification scope, exclusion, supplementary scheme, precedence rule, client document, or operative version-control process required by this item.
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.
0.00% 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.
0.0000 of 8 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
0.0000 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 in the underlying requirement record. Of 20 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 0 partial, 20 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
Why this metric earned 0.00 percent: 20 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 9.C1 — not verified: The public disclosure is authorized, versioned, dated, and controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
2. Requirement 9.C2 — not verified: It identifies the governing Islamic and technical authority.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
3. Requirement 9.C3 — not verified: It addresses every applicable Form 1002-D field or marks it not applicable.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 9.O1 — not verified: Public criteria match the operative certification scheme.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
2. Requirement 9.O2 — not verified: Changes to criteria are reflected in the controlled public version.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
3. Requirement 9.O3 — not verified: Supplementary-scheme positions and precedence are kept current.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 9.P1 — not verified: Religious or jurisprudential basis.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
2. Requirement 9.P2 — not verified: Supplementary destination-market schemes and precedence.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
3. Requirement 9.P3 — not verified: Mechanical poultry slaughter.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
4. Requirement 9.P4 — not verified: Mechanical-line tasmiyah.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
5. Requirement 9.P5 — not verified: Slaughter-person requirements and supervision.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
6. Requirement 9.P6 — not verified: Stunning and reversibility.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
7. Requirement 9.P7 — not verified: Alive-at-cut control.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
8. Requirement 9.P8 — not verified: Minimum vessel requirement.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
9. Requirement 9.P9 — not verified: Pork and animal derivatives.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
10. Requirement 9.P10 — not verified: Alcohol and ethanol.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
11. Requirement 9.P11 — not verified: Processing aids and ingredient sources.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
12. Requirement 9.P12 — not verified: Shared lines and cross-contact.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
13. Requirement 9.P13 — not verified: Sanitation or ritual cleansing.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
14. Requirement 9.P14 — not verified: Certificate-level position communication.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed public record did not publish a controlled, dated certification-criteria disclosure answering this requirement. This records a public-information limit and does not establish what rule the organization may apply internally.
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 had partial support, and 9 checks remained unverified.
4.41% 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.
0.1324 of 3 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
0.1324 of 2.7000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0000 of 0.1800 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Certificate traceability and mark control earns 0.1250 of 3 points in the underlying requirement record. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 1 partial, 9 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
Why this metric earned 4.41 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1324 competence + 0.0000 public accountability = 0.1324 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. 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. The reviewed record did not establish the required certificate content, validity control, status verification, directory field, mark-use rule, misuse response, or exact certificate traceability for this item.
2. Requirement 10.C2 — not verified: A certified-client and product directory is controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish the required certificate content, validity control, status verification, directory field, mark-use rule, misuse response, or exact certificate traceability for this item.
3. Requirement 10.C3 — not verified: Certificate status, renewal, suspension, withdrawal, cancellation, and scope reduction are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish the required certificate content, validity control, status verification, directory field, mark-use rule, misuse response, or exact certificate traceability for this item.
4. Requirement 10.C4 — not verified: Halal-mark licensing, display, reproduction, translation, and misuse are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish the required certificate content, validity control, status verification, directory field, mark-use rule, misuse response, or exact certificate traceability for this item.
5. Requirement 10.C5 — not verified: Verification records are traceable to the exact certificate and issuer.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish the required certificate content, validity control, status verification, directory field, mark-use rule, misuse response, or exact certificate traceability for this item.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 10.O1 — not verified: Certificates and marks are monitored in use.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish the required certificate content, validity control, status verification, directory field, mark-use rule, misuse response, or exact certificate traceability for this item.
2. Requirement 10.O2 — not verified: Misuse and expired status are acted upon.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish the required certificate content, validity control, status verification, directory field, mark-use rule, misuse response, or exact certificate traceability for this item.
3. Requirement 10.O3 — partial: Directory and status records are maintained.
  Evidence route: First-party and government-hosted public sources. The first-party site lists establishments under halal-food and products licensing, and New York's registry corroborates two named current establishments. The site does not publish a controlled directory with certificate identifiers, validity dates, scope, suspension, withdrawal, or expiry status.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
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: Not independently verified. The reviewed record did not establish the required certificate content, validity control, status verification, directory field, mark-use rule, misuse response, or exact certificate traceability for this item.
2. 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. The reviewed record did not establish the required certificate content, validity control, status verification, directory field, mark-use rule, misuse response, or exact certificate traceability for this item.
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether people can challenge a decision, report a problem, receive an independent review, and see appropriate corrective action. 2 checks had partial support, and 8 checks remained unverified.
3.00% of this category was supported by the reviewed evidence.
View the detailed evidence and calculation
10 objective subrequirements are scored as fulfilled (1), partial (0.5), not verified or contradicted (0), or excluded when genuinely not applicable.
0.0300 of 1 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
0.0000 of 0.9000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0300 of 0.0600 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Complaints, appeals, and corrections earns 0.0750 of 1 points in the underlying requirement record. Of 10 enumerated subrequirements, 0 fulfilled, 2 partial, 8 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
Why this metric earned 3.00 percent: 10 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.0000 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.0300 points. Accreditation-breadth points are added once at the overall level.
A. Control assurance · 60 percent
1. Requirement 11.C1 — not verified: Complaints and appeals have documented procedures.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A general contact form is public, but the reviewed record did not establish the documented complaint-and-appeal procedure, independent reviewer, Islamic expertise, investigation, decision, outcome communication, recusal, corrective action, or certificate-response control required by this item.
2. Requirement 11.C2 — not verified: Independent committee or reviewer requirements are defined.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A general contact form is public, but the reviewed record did not establish the documented complaint-and-appeal procedure, independent reviewer, Islamic expertise, investigation, decision, outcome communication, recusal, corrective action, or certificate-response control required by this item.
3. Requirement 11.C3 — not verified: Islamic-affairs expertise participates where required.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A general contact form is public, but the reviewed record did not establish the documented complaint-and-appeal procedure, independent reviewer, Islamic expertise, investigation, decision, outcome communication, recusal, corrective action, or certificate-response control required by this item.
4. Requirement 11.C4 — not verified: Investigation, decision, communication, corrective action, and records are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A general contact form is public, but the reviewed record did not establish the documented complaint-and-appeal procedure, independent reviewer, Islamic expertise, investigation, decision, outcome communication, recusal, corrective action, or certificate-response control required by this item.
5. Requirement 11.C5 — not verified: Conflicts and recusals are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A general contact form is public, but the reviewed record did not establish the documented complaint-and-appeal procedure, independent reviewer, Islamic expertise, investigation, decision, outcome communication, recusal, corrective action, or certificate-response control required by this item.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 11.O1 — not verified: The mechanism is implemented and reviewed.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A general contact form is public, but the reviewed record did not establish the documented complaint-and-appeal procedure, independent reviewer, Islamic expertise, investigation, decision, outcome communication, recusal, corrective action, or certificate-response control required by this item.
2. Requirement 11.O2 — not verified: Complainants and appellants are informed of outcomes.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A general contact form is public, but the reviewed record did not establish the documented complaint-and-appeal procedure, independent reviewer, Islamic expertise, investigation, decision, outcome communication, recusal, corrective action, or certificate-response control required by this item.
3. Requirement 11.O3 — not verified: Valid complaints can trigger investigation and certificate action.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. A general contact form is public, but the reviewed record did not establish the documented complaint-and-appeal procedure, independent reviewer, Islamic expertise, investigation, decision, outcome communication, recusal, corrective action, or certificate-response control required by this item.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 11.P1 — partial: A working public route or contact method exists for complaints and appeals.
  Evidence route: First-party public source. The website provides a public contact form and organization contact details, but it does not label the route for complaints and appeals or publish the procedure, review safeguards, timelines, or escalation path.
  Public sources: Source 1
2. Requirement 11.P2 — partial: The submission pathway and responsible organization are clear.
  Evidence route: First-party public source. The organization and a general submission route are publicly identifiable, but the route is not presented as a complaint-and-appeal pathway and the responsible reviewer, decision process, and escalation mechanism are not stated.
  Public sources: Source 1
Authorized representative? Claim verification unlocks the private requirement-by-requirement improvement checklist at no charge. The annual review fee begins only when formal evidence is submitted. Open the review portal.
12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
What this means in plain English: This category asks whether the organization has a verifiable operating record and enough qualified people and resources for the certification work it claims to perform. 1 check was fully supported, 1 check had partial support, and 7 checks remained unverified.
10.32% 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.
0.2065 of 2 weighted points. not publicly verified.
Accreditation effect: No current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was verified, so this metric receives no automatic accreditation competence determination or breadth credit.
Competence contribution
0.1765 of 1.8000 points.
Public-accountability contribution
0.0300 of 0.1200 points.
Recorded category conclusion: Operating history and demonstrated capacity earns 0.2417 of 2 points in the underlying requirement record. Of 9 enumerated subrequirements, 1 fulfilled, 1 partial, 7 not independently verified, 0 contradicted, and 0 excluded as not applicable.
Why this metric earned 10.32 percent: 9 requirements, evidence routes, sources, and status findings
Arithmetic: 0.1765 competence + 0.0300 public accountability = 0.2065 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: Not independently verified. Current public activity is attributable to the organization, but the reviewed record did not establish the competence planning, workload controls, staffing, outsourcing, internal review, surveillance, recertification, management review, or accredited confidential-capacity assurance required by this item.
2. Requirement 12.C2 — not verified: Audit time, staffing, sites, shifts, categories, and workload are considered.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. Current public activity is attributable to the organization, but the reviewed record did not establish the competence planning, workload controls, staffing, outsourcing, internal review, surveillance, recertification, management review, or accredited confidential-capacity assurance required by this item.
3. Requirement 12.C3 — not verified: External resources and outsourcing are controlled.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. Current public activity is attributable to the organization, but the reviewed record did not establish the competence planning, workload controls, staffing, outsourcing, internal review, surveillance, recertification, management review, or accredited confidential-capacity assurance required by this item.
4. Requirement 12.C4 — not verified: Records, internal audits, management review, and corrective action support continued delivery.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. Current public activity is attributable to the organization, but the reviewed record did not establish the competence planning, workload controls, staffing, outsourcing, internal review, surveillance, recertification, management review, or accredited confidential-capacity assurance required by this item.
B. Operational evidence · 25 percent
1. Requirement 12.O1 — not verified: Current accreditation or direct evidence verifies active delivery capacity within scope.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. Current public activity is attributable to the organization, but the reviewed record did not establish the competence planning, workload controls, staffing, outsourcing, internal review, surveillance, recertification, management review, or accredited confidential-capacity assurance required by this item.
2. Requirement 12.O2 — fulfilled: Current certificates or clients demonstrate active operations.
  Evidence route: First-party and government-hosted public sources. The official website publishes a current halal-food and products licensing list, and New York's government-hosted registry independently attributes HD Halal Diner Inc. and Labbaik Supermarket Inc. to United Ulama Council of USA Inc. as certifier. The registry content is establishment-entered attestation of current activity, not accreditation or independent verification of certification controls.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
3. Requirement 12.O3 — not verified: Surveillance, recertification, and management review maintain capacity.
  Evidence route: Not independently verified. Current public activity is attributable to the organization, but the reviewed record did not establish the competence planning, workload controls, staffing, outsourcing, internal review, surveillance, recertification, management review, or accredited confidential-capacity assurance required by this item.
C. Public evidence · 15 percent
1. Requirement 12.P1 — partial: Operating history, current service scope, and accountable contact are publicly identifiable.
  Evidence route: First-party and government-hosted public sources. The first-party website identifies the organization, current halal licensing service, licensed establishments, president, and accountable contact route; New York's registry corroborates current certifier activity. The reviewed record does not establish a founding date, certification-program timeline, current certificate documents, or a documented operating-history chronology.
  Public sources: Source 1 · Source 2
2. 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. Current public activity is attributable to the organization, but the reviewed record did not establish the competence planning, workload controls, staffing, outsourcing, internal review, surveillance, recertification, management review, or accredited confidential-capacity assurance required by this item.
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 record identifies the operating organization and links it to current New York activity through first-party, independent, and government-hosted sources.
Current halal-licensing activity is supported by a first-party establishment list and two New York registration entries.
The founder and president are identified, while questions about certification governance and decision authority remain separate.

What should make you cautious

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization.
The reviewed record does not establish the accountable halal-approval method, auditor and reviewer qualifications, religious review, or final decision authority.
The governing standard, public certification criteria, certificate-validity controls, impartiality safeguards, and complete complaint-and-appeal procedure remain not independently verified.

What evidence could change this view

What current, verifiable records would clarify ownership and control?
What current, verifiable records would clarify qualified personnel?
What current, verifiable records would clarify halal-specific audit and certification controls?

View the original requirement-level questions

Which controlled halal standard and current version govern the licensing program?
Who audits facilities and documents, what qualifications do those people hold, and what halal-specific evidence do they record?
Who conducts the Islamic review, who makes final halal and certification decisions, and how are those decisions documented and protected from commercial pressure?
How can a consumer check the exact holder, site, scope, issue date, expiry date, and current status of a certificate or license?
What documented procedures apply to complaints, appeals, corrections, suspension, withdrawal, and recertification?

Credibility Score interpretation

Model B assigns 4.0068 of 90 competence-assurance points, 0.0000 of 4 distinct-independent-authority breadth points, and 0.7650 of 6 public-accountability points.
No qualifying current comprehensive independent exact-entity accreditation was applied; competence is normalized from the same control and operational requirement evidence used across the national set.
The New York registry supports current attributable activity only. It does not establish the organization's governing standard, auditor competence, religious review, final halal-decision authority, certificate controls, or accreditation.
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 any particular certificate lacks validity. New York's registration rows contain information entered by establishments and are treated as government-hosted registrant attestations of activity, not accreditation or independent verification of certification controls. 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 determination of certificate validity in any particular case. An undisclosed item is not treated as proof that no internal control exists.

How the halal approval was reached is not publicly explained

The main limitation is not simply that the public cannot see who visited an establishment. The reviewed record does not explain the accountable path to halal approval: which application and scope are reviewed; which standard and version govern the work; what ingredient and process evidence is examined; what halal-specific observations are made; what qualifications and authorizations reviewers have; how Islamic questions are decided; or who has final authority to issue, suspend, withdraw, or renew certification.

The organization's religious-community identity and the public title of its founder and president provide limited transparency about leadership and Islamic authority. By themselves, they do not establish professional qualifications, auditor competence, a certification-specific Islamic appointment, independent technical review, or final halal-decision authority. The assessment therefore recognizes only the limited support provided by those disclosures and leaves the separate personnel, governance, and decision questions not independently verified. [1] [3]

The same distinction applies to complaints and appeals. A general contact form gives people a way to contact the organization, so it receives limited recognition as a public route. It does not establish a documented complaint-and-appeal procedure, an independent reviewer, conflict safeguards, timeframes, outcome communication, escalation, corrective action, or a response affecting a certificate.

What accreditation and public records can—and cannot—show

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. New York's establishment registrations are not accreditation records and do not assess the organization against a halal certification-body standard. The assessment therefore gives no automatic accreditation-based determination of certification-system competence or separate recognition for the breadth of independent authorities.

The resulting assessment of certification-system competence is not a default minimum. It is based only on control and operating requirements that the reviewed record affirmatively supports. Under the same approach, an item that was not verified receives no recognition, without treating missing disclosure as misconduct or proof that an internal control does not exist.

What standards and positions are publicly available

The reviewed first-party and authoritative public record did not identify a controlled governing standard or version, a complete certification scope, exclusions, supplementary destination-market schemes, precedence rules, or a dated public methodology. It also did not establish public positions on the Form 1002-D subjects, including mechanical slaughter, tasmiyah, stunning, alive-at-cut controls, vessel requirements, pork derivatives, alcohol, processing aids, shared lines, sanitation, and certificate-level communication.

For this assessment, these items are not publicly disclosed. This means that an ordinary consumer could not determine the organization's operative position from the reviewed record; it does not mean USDHS has determined which private position the organization follows. The first-party list of licensed establishments and the two New York registrations provide limited evidence of activity and directory information, but they do not provide certificate identifiers, validity dates, exact scope, or a reliable way to check current status. [1] [3]

Conclusion

United Ulama Council of USA Inc. receives a 5% Credibility Score and Grade F. The reviewed record establishes a resolvable nonprofit identity, named senior leadership, current halal-licensing activity, two government-hosted establishment attestations, a limited establishment list, and a general contact route. It does not yet establish the certification-system competence, accreditation, governing criteria, qualified personnel, Islamic and technical review, final decision authority, certificate controls, or public complaint procedure needed for a materially higher result.

This assessment is an evidence map, not a verdict on every product or establishment. It identifies what the current record supports, what remains unresolved, and what evidence could change the score under the same national methodology. It applies the published USDHS methodology as an evidence-review framework; it does not replace the controlling HIPS standard or make a religious ruling about any certificate or product.

What evidence could change this assessment

This section describes evidence that could support a higher score for United Ulama Council of USA Inc. It does not suggest that a control is absent simply because the reviewed public record did not establish it. A submission must match the exact assessed entity, state the dates and scope, and show who was responsible for implementation and decision-making.

Qualifying records may be public or submitted privately through the secure evidence pathway. Private records may support evidence of controls or operations when they can be authenticated, but they do not create public-transparency recognition unless the organization makes the material information public.

Metric 1 — Legal identity and operating status: A current authoritative state entity record, plus a current certificate template that shows the exact issuer, operating name, jurisdiction, principal office or documented branches, holder, site, scope, identifier, issue date, and expiry date, would address this area.
Metric 2 — Ownership and control: Useful records would currently identify the nonprofit's members or board, voting and management rights, controlling people or organizations, governing interests, related entities, conflicts, and continuity for the exact assessed entity.
Metric 3 — Governance and accountable leadership: A current governing-body roster and organizational chart could identify certification leadership, committees, reporting lines, management accountability, certification authority, and review responsibilities.
Metric 4 — Personnel competence and authorization: Relevant current criteria and records would cover auditors, technical experts, Islamic-affairs experts, reviewers, contractors, qualifications, sector experience, halal and audit training, authorization scope, assignments, monitoring, and continuing competence.
Metric 5 — Islamic authority and halal decision: Current records could identify the certification-specific Islamic authority or committee, appointments, qualifications, jurisprudential basis, review responsibility, independence safeguards, and traceable participation in final halal decisions.
Metric 6 — Halal audit method and facility verification: A controlled procedure and representative recent files could show application review, scope, ingredient and process evaluation, audit planning and time, on-site observations, sampling, findings, corrective actions, independent review, decision, surveillance, and recertification.
Metric 7 — Impartiality and decision separation: A current impartiality policy and implementation records could identify risk review, separation from consulting, conflicts, recusals, oversight, confidentiality, and separation among audit, sales, technical review, Islamic review, and certification decision-making.
Metric 8 — Standards, scheme, and certification scope: A current controlled halal standard or scheme could identify its version, effective date, sectors and locations, exclusions, supplementary schemes, precedence, scope-change controls, certificate scope, and the responsible issuing organization.
Metric 9 — Public certification criteria and position disclosure: A current authorized public declaration could cover the governing standard and version, religious basis, scope and exclusions, practical halal positions, supplementary-scheme precedence, certificate communication, and a public verification route.
Metric 10 — Certificate traceability and mark control: A current public directory or verification route could show the certificate identifier, holder, site, products or scope, effective and expiry dates, live status, suspension or withdrawal, and enforceable controls for use and misuse of the mark.
Metric 11 — Complaints, appeals, and corrections: A current public procedure could identify submission routes, acknowledgement and response timeframes, independent review, Islamic expertise when required, conflict safeguards, outcome communication, escalation, records, corrective action, and certificate response.
Metric 12 — Operating history and demonstrated capacity: Current independently verifiable records could show the certification program's timeline, active certificates, sectors and locations served, resources and workload, surveillance activity, management review, and competent personnel capacity matched to that work.

Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body

United Ulama Council of USA Inc. or another affected party may submit responsive records through the secure documentary-evidence form. Material evidence is evaluated under the same methodology whether it raises or lowers the Credibility Score.

An authorized representative may also use Claim this certification body. The claimant must document identity, role, and authority to act for the exact assessed entity through qualifying documentation and an independently confirmable official contact channel. A claim remains private and pending until it is reviewed; it does not give editorial control, reveal other submissions, or automatically change the article, Credibility Score, Grade, or ranking.

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

Frequently asked questions

Why did United Ulama Council of USA Inc. receive a 5% Credibility Score and Grade F?

The record links current halal-licensing activity to the organization, but this review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization, and the public evidence does not establish most certification-system controls. It also does not explain the governing standard, qualified audit and review personnel, Islamic review, final halal-decision authority, certificate-status controls, or a complete complaint-and-appeal procedure.

Is United Ulama Council of USA Inc. currently active as a halal certifier?

Its first-party website offers halal food and products licensing, and New York's government-hosted registration system names it as certifier for two establishments. These entries support activity that can be linked to the organization, but they are information entered by the establishments, not accreditation or a state finding that every certification control was met.

Is United Ulama Council of USA Inc. independently accredited?

This review could not verify qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization. A New York establishment registration is not accreditation. The organization may submit a current credential showing the issuing authority, standard, exact entity, dates, scope, sites, and restrictions for review.

Does Grade F invalidate United Ulama Council certificates?

No. Grade F means the reviewed evidence supports only a small part of the accountability framework used for this assessment. It is not a religious ruling or a determination about any particular certificate, establishment, or product.

What evidence would make the biggest difference to this assessment?

The most important evidence would identify the controlled governing standard, certification scope, qualified auditors and reviewers, certification-specific Islamic authority, halal-specific audit records, independent technical and religious review, final decision authority, impartiality controls, a certificate-status mechanism, a complaint procedure, and any qualifying current independent accreditation for this organization.

References

View the controlling HIPS publication

Related audit-readiness guidance

Browse all USDHS Insights

United Ulama Council of USA Comprehensive Accountability Assessment: 5% Credibility Score, Grade F

Why a halal licensing name is not enough

Entity and current certification activity

United Ulama Council of USA Inc. halal food and products licensing program Organizational accountability and public certification-criteria disclosure: 5% Credibility Score · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated

Where this score came from

What helps—and what gives us pause

What supports confidence

Current attributable halal-licensing activity

What needs caution

Halal approval method and decision authority are not publicly established

No current comprehensive exact-entity accreditation verified

Why each category received its result

1. Legal identity and standing

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

2. Ownership and control

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

3. Accountable leadership and governance

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

4. Qualified personnel

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

5. Islamic authority and halal decision rights

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

6. Halal-specific audit and certification controls

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

7. Impartiality, conflicts, and independence

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

9. Public certification criteria and position disclosure

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

10. Certificate traceability and mark control

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

11. Complaints, appeals, and corrections

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

12. Operating history and demonstrated capacity

A. Control assurance · 60 percent

B. Operational evidence · 25 percent

C. Public evidence · 15 percent

What you should know

What the evidence supports

What should make you cautious

What evidence could change this view

Credibility Score interpretation

How the halal approval was reached is not publicly explained

What accreditation and public records can—and cannot—show

What standards and positions are publicly available

Conclusion

What evidence could change this assessment

Corrections, appeals, and claiming this certification body

Frequently asked questions

Why did United Ulama Council of USA Inc. receive a 5% Credibility Score and Grade F?

Is United Ulama Council of USA Inc. currently active as a halal certifier?

Is United Ulama Council of USA Inc. independently accredited?

Does Grade F invalidate United Ulama Council certificates?

What evidence would make the biggest difference to this assessment?

References

Related audit-readiness guidance