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 Deputy Resident Representative-Operations, claimed expertise in security and risk analysis, risk mitigation, crisis management, finance, conflict resolution, and related fields, seeking to continue work in these areas in the U.S.
Field: security and risk management/operations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish either advanced degree professional status (no proof of profession requiring baccalaureate, no official academic records of degree) or exceptional ability (met only 1 of 6 criteria; failed license/certification, membership, salary, and recognition criteria; degree/diploma evidence also rejected).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“we do not consider the submitted documents to constitute official academic records”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner did not submit any evidence to show that a license or certification is required to practice his profession”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- awards · discounted
“this award only recognizes his length of service with his employer”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the absence of this evidence undermines the evidentiary value of the academic evaluation as a whole”
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 petition failed at the threshold EB-2 stage (neither advanced degree professional nor exceptional ability established), rendering the national interest waiver analysis moot; the AAO explicitly declined to reach the NIW/Dhanasar prongs, stating 'the issue of the national interest waiver is moot.' Notably, the AAO also withdrew two of the Director's favorable findings on exceptional ability criteria (A and F), ultimately finding the Petitioner met only 1 of 6 criteria rather than the 3 the Director had credited.
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)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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