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, an IT solutions architect/product owner, sought to continue work in information technology in the United States under an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver.
Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional because the employer letters submitted did not sufficiently document five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the required letter format; remanded for consideration of exceptional ability criteria not yet reviewed by Director.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“it was not in the form of letters from his former employers, and therefore does not meet the requirements”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“The record indicates that the Petitioner did not submit a business plan in response to the RFE.”
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
AAO found the Director's decision internally inconsistent and possibly not reflecting the actual record: the Director's national-importance analysis repeatedly referenced a 'business plan' that the Petitioner never submitted, raising doubt the RFE response was properly considered. AAO withdrew the threshold EB-2 determination and remanded without reaching any Dhanasar prong, also directing consideration of exceptional-ability criteria the Director had not yet addressed.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO found the Director erred in finding advanced-degree eligibility (letters didn't meet 5-year requirement) and failed to address exceptional ability or properly explain the national importance analysis, necessitating remand.
Ensure employer letters directly and specifically document required years of progressive experience, and confirm the record actually contains referenced documents (e.g., business plans) to support classification and prong analyses.
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