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 architect, sought to continue working in architecture (including freelance architectural work) in the United States; the decision does not elaborate further on a specific proposed endeavor.
Field: architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish possession of an advanced degree or five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, nor did she meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria (only the academic record criterion was satisfied), so she failed to qualify as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not provide specific dates of employment and a specific description of duties performed”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not explain or elaborate how her work has had an impact beyond her employers, clientele, and their projects”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“these documents do not show that her work has been significant to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- motion resubmission · ignored
“we will not consider them for the first time on appeal”
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 appeal technically concerned the Director's dismissal of a motion to reconsider (not the underlying denial), and the Petitioner mischaracterized her filing as a combined motion to reopen and reconsider when it was only a motion to reconsider. Because the Petitioner failed the threshold EB-2 classification requirement (neither advanced degree professional nor exceptional ability), the AAO never reached the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs. New evidence submitted for the first time on appeal (client/employer letters, contract, membership certificate) was excluded under Matter of Soriano's notice-and-opportunity rule.
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. 103.5(a)(3)
- Flores v. Garland
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