This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a financial administrator with a background in vehicle financing and financial management, sought to work in financial services in the United States.
Field: financial administration/services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish advanced degree eligibility (unclear single-source bachelor's equivalency, inconsistent/insufficient progressive experience letters, non-compliant combined education/experience evaluation) and failed exceptional ability eligibility (met only 2 of 6 criteria: license/certification not related to occupation, professional association membership not shown to be restricted to professionals, and letters of recognition found conclusory/unsupported).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“we are unable to determine if the Petitioner has earned the single source equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“These unexplained inconsistencies and discrepancies materially diminish the weight we ascribe to the Petitioner's submitted evidence”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's evidence does not adequately demonstrate that their licensure or certification as an "administrator" corresponds to their financial services occupation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these statements are not supported by any evidence in the record which reflects that these letters represent noteworthy achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO reached its dismissal entirely on threshold EB-2 categorical ineligibility (both advanced degree and exceptional ability paths) and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for not deciding unnecessary issues. Notable factual findings included inconsistent employment letters casting doubt under Matter of Ho, a credential evaluation improperly combining education and experience, and a trade-organization certification (ANBIMA) found not to constitute an official license given it was open even to students.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod