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 direct care worker with a nursing background, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: nursing / direct care work · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability: her diploma/certificate were not shown to be 'official academic records' from a qualifying institution; her employment letter did not establish ten years of full-time experience with dates and duties; and her recommendation letters did not show recognition for significant contributions to the industry or field, addressing only personal character and post-filing events.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish how the presented 'Diploma' and 'Certificate' represent 'official academic record[s]'”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“it does not establish a full ten years of employment or state the dates of employment such as start and end dates”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not identify her achievements and contributions to the industry or field”
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 case was resolved entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability criteria (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)); the AAO expressly declined to reach the final merits determination or the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs, reserving those issues as unnecessary to the outcome.
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(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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