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 administrative services specialist/executive assistant, proposed to continue working in the U.S. assisting companies with business administration solutions, operational efficiency, and managerial/executive support services.
Field: business administration / administrative services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish equivalency of her Brazilian credentials to a U.S. baccalaureate or advanced degree, and did not satisfy at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria (letters did not show full-time experience; certificate organization not shown to be a qualifying professional association).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer and clientele to impact her field or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to her future work”
“she has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
“The Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how her proposed work as an Administrative Services Specialist or Executive Assistant involves her bringing substantial levels of FDI to our country.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish her Brazilian credentials' equivalency to either a U.S. baccalaureate degree or U.S. advanced degree.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these letters did not state that her experience was "full-time."”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the evidence does not identify her as "member" of the”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's administrative services would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO addresses threshold advanced-degree and exceptional-ability eligibility in detail (finding only 2 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria met) before reaching the NIW analysis, and explicitly dismisses on multiple independent alternate grounds (threshold failure plus Dhanasar prong 1 failure), declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 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