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 sought employment as an IT coordinator, asserting he would make important contributions to the U.S. by introducing automated purchasing processing systems and infrastructure services through his own company.
Field: information technology / network and computer systems administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not claim advanced-degree professional eligibility and failed to satisfy at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); only the academic-degree criterion was met, with work-experience letters, license/certification, salary, professional-membership, and recognition criteria all found unmet.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's documentation falls short in demonstrating that he has at least ten years of full-time experience in the Network and Computer Systems Administrators occupation.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner has not explained how attending computer-related training courses constitutes his certification for the occupation.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence does not show that the Petitioner's work has had an impact beyond his employers, clientele, and their projects.”
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 Petitioner ineligible for the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification and, per Bagamasbad and Matter of M-F-O-, expressly declined to reach any of the three Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, resolving the appeal entirely on threshold eligibility grounds.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- 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