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 human resources specialist, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver; the underlying proposed endeavor was not discussed because the case was resolved on threshold eligibility grounds.
Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), meeting only the academic-record criterion; her belated claim to advanced-degree-professional status was waived and, even if considered, was unsupported by new transcripts showing only 2.5-3 years of study rather than a full bachelor's equivalent.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the two underlying school transcripts do not show she completed an education comparable to that of a U.S. bachelor's degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
- motion resubmission · discounted
“we are not required to consider it now for the first time on this motion”
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
Threshold exceptional-ability classification failure was dispositive on the underlying appeal, so the AAO never reached the Dhanasar NIW prongs. On motion, the Petitioner attempted to switch her claimed classification to advanced-degree professional, blaming prior counsel; the AAO held this was a waived new eligibility claim not proper on a motion to reconsider, and even considering the newly submitted diploma/transcripts on motion, found they did not establish a U.S.-equivalent bachelor's degree (citing AACRAO EDGE database and discrepancies in diploma dates).
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
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