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 manager consultant, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver to continue work in financial management in the United States.
Field: financial management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not claim an advanced degree and failed to establish exceptional ability; the AAO found her experience largely administrative rather than in the occupation of financial manager, found her ten-years-experience and high-remuneration criteria not met, and concluded the totality of evidence (courses, letters, salary) did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the record does not establish that all 9 years and 6 months of the Petitioner's employment was 'in the occupation sought'”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“this does not establish her exceptional ability, only that she was successful at her position”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not explained how these courses compare to the knowledge and education of others in the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“because the Petitioner has not provided such evidence, we cannot conclude that the record establishes she has commanded a salary indicative of exceptional ability”
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 dismissed the appeal entirely on the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability determination (finding the Director's RFE statement that three criteria were met did not equal a final eligibility finding), and expressly declined to reach the NIW prongs as unnecessary once eligibility for the underlying classification failed, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of M-F-O-.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution