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 proposed to work in the United States as a computer and information systems manager or executive, helping American companies optimize technology and information systems use.
Field: computer and information systems management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner's combined foreign associate degree and one-year graduate study do not equate to a single U.S. bachelor's-plus-master's equivalency; advanced degree professional classification not established. Exceptional ability claim remanded for Director's first review.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“the decision does not sufficiently explain the basis for this determination”
“the Director's decision did not meaningfully address the evidence submitted with the petition or in response to a request for evidence”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that he earned the foreign equivalent of either a U.S. academic or professional degree above that of a bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- business plan · ignored
“the decision does not sufficiently explain the reasons the Petitioner does not demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“the Director's decision did not reference or analyze these documents”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“the Director's decision did not reference or analyze these documents”
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 finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional (combining a foreign associate degree and one-year graduate equivalency does not equal a master's), and separately criticized the Director for failing to address substantial record evidence (additional professional plan, opinion letters, articles/government reports) before concluding national importance was unmet, remanding for full Dhanasar analysis including unaddressed 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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
- Visinscaia v. Beers
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's denial was conclusory: it found no national importance and ignored second/third Dhanasar prongs without addressing the professional plan, opinion letters, or government reports submitted, requiring remand for proper analysis.
Adjudicators and petitioners alike must explicitly tie submitted evidence to each Dhanasar prong and to the specific endeavor's scale of impact, not just assert importance conclusorily.
vague
field_advancement · economic_growth_generic · us_competitiveness
mixed
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