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 sound engineer technician, sought to work in the United States, claiming eligibility as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver.
Field: sound engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner met only 2 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria and erroneously overlooked advanced-degree evidence; AAO found Director's review incomplete and remanded rather than affirming failure.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · credited
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner submitted no evidence that he has an advanced degree”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit any new evidence, but only resubmitted the identical evidence”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
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 found the Director made two significant oversights: erroneously stating no advanced-degree evidence was submitted, and erroneously stating no new evidence was submitted on motion to reopen (two membership cards were in fact new). AAO withdrew and remanded without reaching the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs, though it noted in a footnote that the current record does not appear to show the Petitioner meets all prongs of that framework.
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. 103.5(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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director committed factual/procedural errors: overlooked new membership evidence and ignored advanced-degree evidence, so AAO could not confirm full record review, requiring remand rather than merits ruling.
On motions to reopen, clearly flag any new evidence submitted and directly rebut the denial's stated reasons; ensure advanced-degree/exceptional-ability threshold evidence is unambiguous before addressing Dhanasar prongs.
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