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 Brazilian bachelor's degree in administration, sought to work in the U.S. in human resources and requested a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement based on claimed exceptional ability.
Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner met only two of six regulatory exceptional-ability criteria (academic record and professional membership), falling short of the three required; experience letters did not show 10 years in the same/similar occupation, the submitted license/certification was for a different occupation ('administrator'), salary evidence lacked a comparator, and recognition letters/certificates/media were conclusory and did not show expertise above that ordinarily encountered.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“These job duties do not correspond with the job duties of a human resources specialist.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's evidence does not adequately demonstrate that their licensure or certification as an "administrator" corresponds to their human resources specialist occupation”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters did not demonstrate achievement or significant contributions reflecting expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“it is not demonstrated in the quote how the Petitioner's expertise rose to a level significantly above that ordinarily encountered in their field”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- other · discounted
“we cannot evaluate from information in the record whether the Petitioner's salary or remuneration demonstrated their exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the record does not adequately describe how the certificates are reflective of an expertise above that ordinarily encountered in the 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
AAO disagreed with the Director's finding, concluding the Petitioner met only two (not four) of the six exceptional-ability criteria; because the threshold EB-2 classification failed, AAO expressly reserved and did not reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, treating each stated evidentiary shortfall as an independent alternate basis for dismissal.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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