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 software developer compensated as an LLC member, described a career plan to use his acquired knowledge to design and develop software for companies on large-scale projects.
Field: software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The petitioner failed both threshold routes: he did not show his foreign diploma plus specialization certificate combined to equal a U.S. advanced degree (regulation contemplates only a singular degree equivalent), and he did not show his salary/remuneration as a software developer demonstrated exceptional ability relative to others in the field, particularly given inconsistent and declining income and improper conflation of separate job titles' earnings.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services uses evaluations as advisory opinions only.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not address the lack of evidence in the record comparing the Petitioner's earnings ... to those of others with comparable responsibilities”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
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 decision never reaches the NIW prongs because the petition fails at the threshold EB-2 stage (advanced degree / exceptional ability). The AAO rejects combining a non-equivalent foreign degree with a separate specialization certificate to form an advanced-degree equivalent, and rejects conflating software-developer income with business-owner income to establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). The petitioner's 2020 tax return is disregarded as post-filing evidence under Matter of Katigbak.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of R-A-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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