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 worked as a marketing and commercial manager in business administration, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, but the decision does not reach the substance of his proposed endeavor because it turned on threshold eligibility.
Field: business administration / marketing and commercial management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish either an advanced degree (foreign bachelor's plus five years of progressive experience supported by employer letters) or exceptional ability (at least three of six regulatory criteria), largely because supporting letters came from coworkers/colleagues rather than current or former employers and other evidence (salary data, recognition letters) was found insufficient.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the new academic evaluation did not constitute a new fact or evidence with respect to this EB-2 classification requirement”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters the Petitioner submitted on motion (with one exception) were from his colleagues or coworkers, and not from his current or former employers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they did not show how the impact of his work, achievements and recognitions went beyond the private employer he had worked for”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Resubmission of essentially the same evidence on motion did not establish any new facts that might warrant a different conclusion”
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 expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis because the Petitioner failed to establish threshold EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree or exceptional ability); the case was resolved entirely on procedural motion-to-reopen/reconsider grounds under 8 C.F.R. 103.5, with the underlying I-140 denial itself not under appeal.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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