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 financial analyst, sought to continue work in his field in the United States, but the decision did not reach the merits of any proposed endeavor because the underlying EB-2 classification was not established.
Field: finance / business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner abandoned his exceptional-ability claim on appeal and failed to establish he qualified as an advanced degree professional: his foreign credential was a 'lato sensu' professional certificate rather than a graduate degree, the educational evaluator did not review employment letters to substantiate progressive experience, and the sole employer letter submitted did not describe his duties sufficiently to show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we may discount or give less weight to that evaluation”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Without additional information regarding the Petitioner's duties, we are unable to conclude that the Petitioner has at least five years of progressive experience”
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 threshold EB-2 classification failure was dispositive and no NIW prong analysis was conducted; the AAO stated 'each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision,' addressing both the flawed credential evaluation and insufficient employer letter as separate independent grounds for dismissal. The Petitioner's exceptional-ability claim was deemed abandoned for failure to address it on 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. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 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