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 underlying petition described the Petitioner as a CEO and entrepreneur with over 11 years of work experience; the specific proposed endeavor was not discussed in this motion decision, which addressed only threshold eligibility.
Field: business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner argued his high school diploma plus 30 years of work experience should qualify as an advanced degree equivalent, and belatedly claimed exceptional ability, but cited no supporting case law and the AAO found the credential evaluation relied upon was not probative because it misapplied the H-visa 'three-for-one' rule; the exceptional-ability claim was also found not properly raised on appeal.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the evaluator's reliance on the 'three-for-one' rule is misplaced”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the regulations do not allow baccalaureate equivalents based on combinations of education and experience”
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 is a motion to reconsider addressing only threshold EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree / exceptional ability); the NIW merits prongs were never reached. The AAO rejected a credential evaluation for misapplying the H-1B 'three-for-one' education-experience rule to an EB-2 advanced-degree determination, and found the Petitioner's belated exceptional-ability claim was not properly raised on appeal, citing Giday v. INS regarding passing references in briefs.
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)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers