dismissedJAN082024_03B52032024-01-08 · motion_reconsider · 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, a general and operations manager, sought a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement for EB-2 classification, though her specific proposed endeavor was not clearly articulated in the record.

Field: general and operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner held only a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree; work experience exceeding five years was accrued largely before completing her bachelor's degree, so it could not count toward the five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience required for 'advanced degree' status under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we withdrew the Director's conclusory determination that the Petitioner met the first prong of the Dhanasar framework”

“We provided a multi-page analysis of the Petitioner's evidence and concluded that she did not establish the national importance of her proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“she did not demonstrate that she had either a degree above that of a baccalaureate or the required five years of post-baccalaureate work experience”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“much of that experience was accrued prior to her completion of a bachelor's degree and therefore could not be counted”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“she has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider at 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

1,581coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider (rather than reopen) but sought to submit new evidence and argued she was denied sufficient time (30 days) to respond; AAO noted this mismatch, observing that a motion to reopen would have been the proper vehicle for new evidence. AAO also rejected Petitioner's argument that it should have deferred to the Director's (conclusory) favorable prong-one finding, citing de novo review authority.

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(k)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer