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.
A nurse from Brazil with experience in onshore and offshore nursing care sought to work in the United States as a nurse and obtain a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner claimed to meet four of the six exceptional-ability criteria (A, B, C, F) but the AAO found only criterion (A) satisfied; criteria (B), (C), and (F) were not met, so at least three of six were not established as required.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not provide 'a specific description of the duties performed by [the Petitioner]'”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the identification card ... expired prior to the petition filing date”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not address how the Petitioner may have earned achievements or made significant contributions”
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 expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs because the Petitioner failed the threshold exceptional-ability classification, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that adjudicators need not reach unnecessary issues. The AAO also partially sided with the Petitioner, withdrawing the Director's erroneous requirement that the academic credential and certification reflect expertise 'significantly above that ordinarily encountered,' though the appeal was still dismissed because other criteria were unmet.
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. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Visinscaia v. Beers
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria (documents post-dated filing, letters lacked duty specificity/full-time evidence, no evidence of significant contributions), making him categorically ineligible before Dhanasar analysis.
Ensure underlying EB-2 classification (exceptional ability/advanced degree) is airtight and dated to filing before litigating national interest; deficient threshold evidence forecloses any NIW merits review.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his