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, an industrial designer who had founded a design company and also worked for another U.S. company, sought to continue working in industrial design in the United States. The AAO never analyzed the specifics of his proposed endeavor because the petition failed at the threshold EB-2 classification stage.
Field: industrial design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish his foreign bachelor's degree was equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, nor did he establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience via a qualifying employer letter, so he failed to qualify as an advanced degree professional. He also did not satisfy at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“neither the copy of the degree nor its translation in the record indicates that the foreign bachelor's degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“[t]he letter does not offer specific dates of his roles and the amount of hours invested, whether full-time or part-time”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“his letter is strictly my opinion and is not the opinion of the university with which I am affiliated or any of its departments or affiliates”
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 threshold EB-2 grounds (degree equivalency and insufficient experience documentation, plus failure to meet exceptional-ability criteria) and expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver analysis at all, stating 'we need not address the Petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding whether a waiver of the job offer requirement... would be in the national interest.' Notably, one submitted letter (from a professor emeritus) discussed Matter of Dhanasar criteria, but the AAO found it irrelevant to the threshold degree-equivalency question and never engaged with the NIW merits.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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