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 sales representative, sought an EB-2 national interest waiver but the underlying endeavor is not described in the decision.
Field: sales · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not at issue on appeal.
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“submits a brief that was copied virtually verbatim from its October 3, 2022 letter submitted in response to a request for evidence”
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
Appeal summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v) because Petitioner merely resubmitted his RFE response verbatim as the appeal brief without identifying any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the Director's decision; no substantive prong analysis occurred.
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
- Poursina v. USCIS
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