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 self-employed electrician and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver, though the specific proposed U.S. endeavor was never reached in this decision.
Field: electrical trade / entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO previously found petitioner met only two of six exceptional-ability criteria (academic record and license), failing to establish 10 years full-time experience (B), a qualifying salary (D), or professional association membership (E); motion did not provide new facts or legal error to disturb this finding.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letter from ... does not indicate that this was full-time employment”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not present new facts supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence”
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 never reached the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs because it had previously found the petitioner ineligible at the threshold exceptional-ability stage (failing to meet 3 of 6 criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)); this decision is limited to dismissing combined motions to reopen and reconsider that threshold finding, citing heavy burden standards from INS v. Abudu and Matter of Coelho for reopening, and Matter of O-S-G- for reconsideration, finding the petitioner merely restated prior arguments without new facts or legal error.
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)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-S-G-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to submit qualifying employer letters proving 10 years full-time experience (relying instead on self-attested ETA 750), and motion raised no new facts or legal error, so only 2 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria were met, barring EB-2 eligibility before any NIW analysis.
Secure compliant third-party employer letters specifying full-time hours/duties for all experience periods; motions must cite specific legal/factual errors, not merely restate prior arguments.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp