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 foreign legal consultant with training in international law and European studies, sought to work in the U.S. legal/paralegal field.
Field: foreign legal consulting / law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as either an advanced degree professional (master's degree awarded after filing; less than five years progressive experience after bachelor's equivalent) or an individual of exceptional ability (met only one of six regulatory criteria).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the degree was awarded after she filed her national interest waiver”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“did not amount to five years of progressive experience in the specialty”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established her membership in professional associations to satisfy the criterion”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not detail how the Petitioner's contributions ... amount to significant contributions to the broader legal 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 AAO dismissed on threshold EB-2 grounds alone (neither advanced degree nor exceptional ability established) and expressly reserved/declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW three-prong analysis, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. Notably, the Petitioner's master's degree was earned after filing, and post-baccalaureate experience fell short due to a gap between degree conferral and qualifying employment start.
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. 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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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