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 former police officer, sought classification and a national interest waiver, but the decision does not reach or describe the substance of her proposed endeavor because the case was resolved on threshold degree-equivalency grounds.
Field: criminal justice / law enforcement · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish that her foreign diploma (two years of study) is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree (four years), a prerequisite for the advanced-degree-professional route under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2); conflicting and unexplained education evaluations (one claiming associate's-degree equivalency, another claiming bachelor's-degree equivalency) were not resolved with independent objective evidence. She also waived any exceptional-ability claim on motion.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“does not explain how her two years of study are equivalent to the four years of education generally required for a U.S. bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Because the evidence in the record does not support the new evaluation's claims... the Petitioner does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen.”
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 never reached the national interest waiver prongs because the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree/exceptional ability) was never established; the threshold degree-equivalency failure was dispositive and the AAO expressly 'reserved' on the NIW issue. The Petitioner argued on motion that the AAO erred by not conducting a Kazarian-style final merits determination on the waiver itself, but the AAO clarified that Kazarian's two-step framework applies only to the exceptional-ability initial-evidence/final-merits inquiry, not to the separate national interest waiver analysis, and that no NIW analysis is undertaken until underlying EB-2 eligibility is shown.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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