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 specialist, intended to work in the United States enhancing cybersecurity for U.S. enterprises and reducing the risk of cyber attacks, data breaches, and financial losses.
Field: IT/cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner's foreign diploma (2-3 years of study) does not equate to a U.S. bachelor's degree, so advanced-degree-professional classification was not established; remanded for Director to evaluate exceptional-ability claim instead.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not establish the Petitioner attained a U.S. bachelor's degree or a "foreign equivalent degree"”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Director focused solely on the letters of recommendation... concluding that they did not establish the Petitioner's achievements in the field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
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 withdrew the denial largely on procedural grounds—the Director failed to adequately explain the basis for finding the underlying EB-2 classification met and for rejecting all three Dhanasar prongs. AAO also independently found the Director erred in accepting the diploma as equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree, directing the Director on remand to instead assess exceptional-ability eligibility before reaching the NIW analysis.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision lacked reasoned analysis on underlying EB-2 eligibility and all three Dhanasar prongs, precluding meaningful appellate review; AAO remanded rather than ruling on merits.
Ensure adjudicators (and petitioners) squarely address endeavor's national-scale impact and underlying classification eligibility with explained reasoning, not conclusory statements.
vague
critical_emerging_tech · economic_growth_generic
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