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 business development manager with a master of public administration degree, sought to continue training and consultancy work related to anti-corruption policy while classified as an advanced-degree professional or individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver.
Field: business development / anti-corruption policy consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The petitioner failed to show her occupation (business development manager) is a profession requiring a baccalaureate degree, failed to submit a credential evaluation for her foreign master's degree, and failed to meet at least three of the exceptional-ability regulatory criteria (insufficient evidence of peer/governmental recognition; unsigned reference letter of limited value).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“she has not submitted an academic credential evaluation to establish its equivalency to a United States degree”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“letter was unsigned and thus of limited evidentiary value”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“insufficient to document that she has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's motion does not include new evidence to overcome our findings”
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
This is the fourth motion to reopen in the same matter; the AAO found the threshold EB-2 eligibility failure dispositive and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW framework ('we need not consider whether she is eligible for a national interest waiver'), even though the decision post-dates and cites Dhanasar rather than the earlier NYSDOT framework.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Katigbak
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution