remandedAPR302024_04B52032024-04-30 · combined · Texas Service Center

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 clerk with a business administration background, sought to continue work in accounting/financial clerking and business consulting in the United States.

Field: accounting/financial clerk · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional relied on an erroneous fact pattern (wrong degree, wrong gender, wrong dates) that the Petitioner herself disputed on motion; the Director also found only one of three required exceptional-ability criteria met, and the AAO identified unresolved questions about the ten-year experience requirement, the licensure/certification criterion, and whether letters showed 'significant contributions' rather than mere achievements. The AAO remanded for the Director to properly resolve threshold eligibility rather than deciding it itself.

How the evidence was treated

motion resubmission · discounted
“nearly all of the material specific to the Petitioner consisted of copies of materials submitted previously”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not effectively document if the petitioner has the required ten years of full-time experience”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“A high school diploma is typically required for most financial clerk positions.”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“A credential that is universally held, or nearly so, within a given occupation ... would tend to have less weight”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“materials that identify an individual's achievements but not significant contributions to the industry or field cannot suffice”
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

The AAO found the Director's original denial was based on a factual error confusing the Petitioner's degree and even gender ('his ... Bachelor's degree' when the Petitioner is female and holds a different degree from a Brazilian university), and that the Director's motion dismissal was conclusory and failed to engage with the Petitioner's detailed legal arguments. The AAO never reached the Dhanasar prongs, instead remanding so the Director could first properly determine threshold EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree vs. exceptional ability) on accurate facts.

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. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
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
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Director's EB-2 classification finding rested on factually wrong data (incorrect degree/year), and the motion to reconsider was dismissed without addressing petitioner's detailed rebuttal, requiring remand for a properly reasoned decision.

Transferable lesson

Before reaching NIW prongs, verify and correct the record's underlying EB-2 eligibility facts (degree, experience, exceptional-ability criteria); factual errors in the denial can force remand regardless of NIW merits.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer