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 business manager, sought to continue working in his field of business administration/management in the United States, claiming his contributions would serve the national interest.
Field: business administration/management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the credential evaluation did not establish education alone met the regulation, relied on unverified resume-based experience claims, and contained an unresolved discrepancy in the field of the foreign degree. AAO also noted the Director never addressed the alternative exceptional-ability claim and remanded for the Director to make this threshold determination anew.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The evaluation, however, does not establish that the Petitioner's education alone meets the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A).”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“there is no indication that he reviewed any employment letters to establish the Petitioner's work history or 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 AAO's discussion of the NIW prongs was extremely cursory: it stated only 'we agree with the Director's ultimate conclusions that the Petitioner has not meet any of the three prongs' without any elaboration, quotes, or specific reasoning, so this was not coded as substantive analysis. The case turned instead on the threshold EB-2 determination: the Director had erroneously found advanced-degree eligibility satisfied without addressing a discrepancy between the diploma (degree in 'administration') and the credential evaluator's characterization (business administration with a major in management), and without verifying the experience evaluation via employer letters rather than the petitioner's resume. The Director also never reached the alternative exceptional-ability claim. AAO remanded for a new threshold determination before any NIW analysis could proceed.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director erroneously found petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional without adequate record support (unresolved degree-title discrepancy, unverified experience evaluation), requiring remand before any NIW merits determination could stand.
Resolve credential-evaluation discrepancies (degree title, verified employment letters) and firmly establish threshold EB-2 classification before litigating Dhanasar prongs on appeal.
vague
person_focused
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