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, who had worked as a nanny and teacher, sought to work in the United States as an assistant teacher in the field of education, a description she first offered on appeal.
Field: childcare/education (nanny, teacher assistant) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as either an advanced degree professional (no academic transcripts or U.S. equivalency evaluation, and unrelated engineering degree) or an individual of exceptional ability (met none of the six regulatory criteria: unrelated academic record, insufficient documented years of full-time experience, no license/certification showing expertise, no salary evidence, no membership evidence, and no evidence of significant contributions/recognition).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“does not appear to be related to the Petitioner's claimed area of exceptional ability in childcare”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the total amount of experience documented is less than 10 years”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“neither certificate demonstrates a significant contribution to the field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not offer specific examples of how her work has been recognized as a significant contribution to the field”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
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
AAO explicitly declined to reach the Dhanasar prongs because the threshold EB-2 classification issue was dispositive, but included an alternative holding ('Even if we had addressed the remaining issues...') based on the Petitioner's failure to timely describe her proposed endeavor despite two RFE/NOID opportunities, invoking the rule against considering evidence/description offered for the first time on appeal (Soriano/Obaigbena). The Petitioner did not identify her proposed endeavor at all until the appeal stage.
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)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp