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 software quality analyst and tester, sought to work in his field in the United States and requested a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: software quality analysis and testing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner waived the exceptional-ability issue by not contesting it on appeal, and failed to establish advanced-degree-professional eligibility because his three-year Brazilian degree and credential evaluation (using an inapplicable '3-for-1 Rule') did not establish the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's or advanced degree.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record, however, does not include sufficient evidence to establish that this degree is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Because the credibility of the credential evaluation is in question, we conclude that it holds little probative value in this matter.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The record, however, does not include supporting evidence to demonstrate that this credential is the foreign equivalent of an advanced degree earned in the United States.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates previous assertions of his qualifications for a national interest waiver that the Director considered in denying the petition.”
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 found the Director erred by failing to analyze the advanced-degree-professional prong in the denial, and addressed it sua sponte on appeal despite this benefiting the Petitioner with additional analysis; ultimately the threshold EB-2 failure (not the Dhanasar prongs) was dispositive, and the AAO declined to reach the three-prong NIW analysis. The AAO also noted the Petitioner's brief and appeal failed to identify any specific error in the Director's NIW findings under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v).
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)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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