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 proposed to work in the United States as a financial analyst, specifically as a branch manager for a mortgage company in Florida.
Field: financial analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not meet any of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); on this third combined motion he failed to present new facts or show legal error as to the certification, remuneration, academic-record, membership, or recognition criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the English translation document does not include the required certification of competence”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“We disagree with the Petitioner's interpretation of the term "professional" under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence.”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“such recognition is not for achievements and significant contributions to the field of financial analysis, but instead for his achievements and contributions to his employer”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the Petitioner does not explain how his technical certificate in system analysis and development relates to a financial analyst's occupational requirement”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
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 decision concerns only a third combined motion to reopen/reconsider on the threshold exceptional-ability classification; the AAO expressly reserved (never reached) the national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad, because the underlying EB-2 classification was not established. No Dhanasar prong analysis occurs.
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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of O-S-G-
- Visinscaia v. Beers
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish exceptional-ability eligibility (uncertified/flawed translation, post-filing certification, unsupported salary claims, mischaracterized award and membership evidence) and presented no new facts or legal error warranting reopening/reconsideration.
Secure properly certified translations, ensure certifications predate filing, substantiate salary/award claims with record evidence, and identify actual legal error rather than reasserting prior arguments on motion.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod