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 Beneficiary, owner of a tax preparation service, sought to operate her tax consulting business in the United States as a self-employed tax consultant.
Field: tax preparation/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Beneficiary did not establish an advanced degree or its foreign equivalent, nor progressive experience equivalent to an advanced degree, and did not meet at least three of six exceptional ability criteria (only met license/certification and membership criteria, not education or experience).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record did not include an academic credentials evaluation to establish the Beneficiary's foreign degree's equivalency to a United States degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The aforementioned letters lack specificity regarding the Beneficiary's duties and the amount of time she devoted”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record shows the Beneficiary received her tax consultant licenses after the Form 1-140 was filed, they do not demonstrate her eligibility for this criterion at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- certification membership · credited
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's motion does not show that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and does not include new information”
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
Decision is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO appeal dismissal; because threshold EB-2 eligibility (exceptional ability/advanced degree) was never established, the AAO never reached the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs at all, either in the original appeal or on this motion.
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. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers