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 analyst, sought classification as a noncitizen of exceptional ability and a national interest waiver of the job offer/labor certification requirement to continue working in financial analysis in the United States.
Field: financial analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner did not meet any of the six exceptional-ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii): his diploma was in system analysis and development, not shown related to financial analysis; his 10+ years of experience was in banking technician/general manager roles, not shown to be in the financial analyst occupation; his ANBIMA 'CPA-10' certification and mortgage loan originator license were not shown to be occupation-specific licenses/certifications; his salary comparison used an inapposite 'general manager' benchmark; his Trade Union membership was not shown to be a professional association; and his letters, certificates, and awards did not show recognition of significant contributions above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The evidence in the record did not demonstrate the relationship between the fields.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“that experience was not exclusively in the occupation of financial analyst”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record did not show that ANBIMA was related to financial analysis occupations”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the statements did not correspond to the Petitioner having expertise as a financial analyst above that ordinarily encountered”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“do not sufficiently indicate how the Petitioner is of exceptional ability or how they amount to being "significant"”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner had not put forward evidence that allowed us to adequately compare the salary or remuneration”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's motion to reopen does not state new facts and does not include new documentary 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
This is a motion decision that never reaches the Dhanasar NIW prongs; the AAO expressly reserved those issues because the Petitioner failed to meet the threshold exceptional-ability criteria in the prior appeal, and the motions were dismissed for failing to present new facts (motion to reopen) or demonstrate legal/factual error (motion to reconsider).
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 291
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
- 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