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 project manager with a background in production/engineering work for a manufacturing company, sought to continue working in project management in the United States under an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver.
Field: project management / production engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish either that he holds a qualifying U.S. advanced degree or its foreign equivalent (his MBA equivalency evaluation was insufficient and he lacked five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience at time of filing) or that he meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (he satisfied only the academic record criterion; the membership criterion was withdrawn on appeal, and the ten-years-experience, license/certification, salary, and recognition criteria were all found unmet).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the credentials evaluation does not establish that the Petitioner's education alone meets the requirements of the regulation”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that his profession or occupation requires the above documents”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters are not sufficient to demonstrate his recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“this award reflects internal recognition for dedication to his employer and not recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the Salario BR information excludes salary data from medium and large companies and therefore does not offer an appropriate basis for comparison”
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 resolved the appeal entirely on threshold EB-2 eligibility grounds (failure to qualify as either an advanced-degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability) and expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver analysis, stating 'the issue of the national interest waiver is moot.' No Dhanasar prong was substantively analyzed.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 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