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 human resources specialist with a foreign bachelor's degree in psychology, sought EB-2 classification with an NIW based on claimed post-baccalaureate HR experience.
Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience in human resources because a letter from a business acquaintance (not a former employer) described duties unrelated to HR, and her own personal statement suggested a broader managerial/business role rather than HR specialization, creating unresolved discrepancies under Matter of Ho.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter is not only bereft of any reference to duties related to human resources”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this explanation does not resolve the discrepancies in the record regarding what her role actually entailed”
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
This decision concerns only the threshold advanced-degree/experience requirement for EB-2 classification; the AAO never reached the national interest waiver prongs because the Petitioner failed to establish the underlying EB-2 eligibility through five years of progressive HR experience. The dispute centered on conflicting descriptions of duties in a third-party business letter versus the Petitioner's own personal statement, with the AAO applying Matter of Ho's discrepancy-resolution standard.
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)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish 5 years post-baccalaureate HR experience; the sole corroborating letter (from a business acquaintance, not an employer) described non-HR duties, and this discrepancy was unresolved, so she did not qualify as an advanced-degree professional under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2), rendering NIW analysis moot.
Secure detailed, consistent corroboration from actual former employers describing specialty-specific duties before claiming progressive experience equivalency; unresolved discrepancies in job duties are fatal even before reaching NIW merits.
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