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 entrepreneur building her own brand, sought to work in the U.S. in marketing and brand management roles.
Field: marketing/business management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish either a qualifying foreign advanced degree equivalent or a qualifying baccalaureate degree combined with five years of progressive post-baccalaureate work experience in her specialty; her expert evaluation and employer letters were discounted due to inconsistencies with academic records and prior ETA-750 filings.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“raises doubts as to whether her degree is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“A-W-'s evaluation is not in accordance with the evidence of record, and we will not grant it any evidentiary weight”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Attempts to explain or reconcile conflicting accounts, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice”
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 Petitioner also raised a due process claim alleging bias because the same officer adjudicated both her current and a prior 2018 NIW petition; the AAO declined to address this claim for lack of legal support, citing Giday v. INS. The decision extensively catalogs inconsistencies between the Petitioner's employer letters and her multiple Forms ETA-750 (including a prior 2018 NIW filing), and never reaches the national interest waiver prongs because the threshold EB-2 classification failure was dispositive.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers