remandedJAN032024_01B52032024-01-03 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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, working as a financial manager, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver to continue his career in financial management/planning in the United States.

Field: financial management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner's Brazilian lato sensu MBA certificate and technologist degree qualify as a U.S. equivalent advanced degree, concluding neither an advanced degree nor a bachelor's-plus-five-years combination was established. The alternative claim of exceptional ability was found insufficiently supported as presented (deficient employer letters, unsupported remuneration comparison, unsupported professional association membership) and remanded for further Director evaluation.

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“does not state that this lato sensu course certificate should be considered equivalent to a U.S. advanced degree.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“he did not provide 'evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employers' in support of this claim.”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“he did not provide any information about the FPA or evidence demonstrating that it is a 'professional association'.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · ignored
“Nor did the Director address other evidence submitted in relation to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which included an expert opinion letter.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“he did not provide evidence demonstrating how the remuneration he commanded for his services is indicative of his claimed exceptional ability.”
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 remanded not because the Petitioner failed to meet his burden, but because the Director's denial contained material factual errors (mischaracterizing the Petitioner as an 'account assistant' in 'brand strategy' rather than a financial manager, and misciting the RFE date), rendering the decision insufficiently explained under 8 C.F.R. 103.3 and Matter of M-P-. The Director had also failed to address the Petitioner's exceptional-ability eligibility or the Dhanasar prongs' specific evidence, resulting in a full remand for a new determination rather than any prong being found dispositively unmet by the AAO.

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. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

AAO found Director's denial factually erroneous (misidentified occupation/field, cited wrong RFE) and inadequately explained, precluding meaningful review; remanded rather than deciding merits.

Transferable lesson

On appeal, factual errors and unexplained reasoning in a denial can compel remand regardless of underlying evidentiary merits; petitioners should flag adjudicator factual mistakes explicitly.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer