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, an oil and gas operations technician in Brazil, sought to work in the U.S. in oil and gas project management, petroleum quality control, equipment maintenance, and safety protocol supervision.
Field: oil and gas / petroleum operations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, meeting only two of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) (B and C); his vocational IT diploma, salary evidence, professional/labor union memberships, and recognition letters did not satisfy criteria (A), (D), (E), or (F). The Director's separate finding that he did not qualify as an advanced degree professional was unopposed on appeal.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“does not explain how an information technology degree relates to the Petitioner's exceptional ability in oil and gas processing and production”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not establish the Petitioner's professional training courses taken during his employment ... are academic record or certificates from "college, university, school, or other institution of learning"”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“This criterion requires demonstration of exceptional ability by salary or other renumeration compared to other individuals in the field, not just employees at the Petitioner's place of employment.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“these associations are not "professional associations" within the meaning of the regulation.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“provide no indication that the Petitioner's contributions go beyond being a dedicated and competent employer.”
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 dismissed the appeal entirely on threshold exceptional-ability grounds and explicitly declined to reach the NIW/Dhanasar analysis, reserving its opinion on whether the Petitioner would have satisfied any Dhanasar prong, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that it need not address alternative dispositive issues.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- 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