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 decision does not reach the merits of the proposed endeavor because the Petitioner failed to establish threshold EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional.
Field: food engineering/food science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience (employment letters lacked specific duty descriptions) and failed to establish that the foreign 'degree of food engineer' was the single-source equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, since neither the degree certificate nor the credential evaluation established the duration of the program of study.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters did not contain the specific description of the duties performed as required by the regulation”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the degree certificate the Petitioner submitted does not show how many years in duration the Petitioner's course of study was”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the evaluation is not of sufficiently relevant, material, or probative value to evaluating if the Petitioner's claimed educational credential is an advanced degree”
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 expressly declines to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis because threshold EB-2 eligibility as an advanced degree professional was not established, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. A footnote also notes the Petitioner did not claim exceptional-ability eligibility.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp