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 engineer, proposed to work as a software developer for her new public emergency response mobile platform business.
Field: software engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Failed both advanced degree pathway (foreign bachelor's degree equivalency not established; five years progressive experience not documented) and exceptional ability pathway (met at most one of six criteria, not the required three).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing that her bachelor of information technology is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not show her dates of employment, whether her work was full-time, or that her job duties were in her occupation”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not show that her certification...is required for entry into the Petitioner's occupation or is specifically tailored for that occupation”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not show that IEEE requires that its membership body be comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not include the claimed average salary range indicated on "Jobstreet Malaysia" or other evidence as comparison”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to her industry or field”
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
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on one exceptional-ability criterion (academic record), finding the Petitioner did not even meet that single criterion, let alone the required three. Because the underlying EB-2 classification threshold was not met, AAO expressly declined to reach any of the three Dhanasar NIW prongs despite the Petitioner's argument that she satisfied all three.
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. 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
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Visinscaia v. Beers
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 eligibility as either advanced-degree professional (no degree equivalency/experience proof) or exceptional-ability individual (met 0 of 6 required criteria), making NIW analysis unreachable.
Before arguing NIW merits, ensure foundational EB-2 eligibility is airtight: submit credential evaluations, detailed employer letters with dates/duties/full-time status, and criterion-specific documentary proof.
vague
person_focused
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