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 senior project manager with a background as an electromechanical technician, sought to continue work in project management within the energy/power infrastructure sector in the United States.
Field: project management / energy infrastructure · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not claim advanced-degree eligibility and, as an individual of exceptional ability, failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria (withdrawing the Director's finding on the professional-membership criterion and agreeing he failed licensure/certification, high-remuneration, and recognition criteria); even assuming three criteria were met, the totality of evidence (education, PMI/IEEE affiliation, recommendation and expert letters) did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the recommendation letters do not provide details on how the Petitioner contributed to project management more broadly”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“these assertions and the current record do not establish that his certificate of membership is a license to practice his occupation”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award... is not in and of itself sufficient evidence of exceptional ability”
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 withdrew part of the Director's favorable finding on one exceptional-ability criterion (professional membership) sua sponte but still affirmed the ultimate denial. Because the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification was not established, the AAO expressly reserved and declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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