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 sales and marketing officer, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, but the decision does not describe the substance of his proposed endeavor because the case turned entirely on threshold classification issues.
Field: sales and marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish possession of a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent (required before counting progressive experience toward an advanced degree equivalency), and did not meet any of the six exceptional-ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F); Petitioner incorrectly conflated H-1B experience-equivalency rules with EB-2 requirements.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record does not include documentation to establish that the Petitioner possesses a U.S. bachelor's degree or its foreign equivalent.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“without evidence of such a degree, we cannot conclude that any of the Petitioner's experience qualifies as post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide new documentary evidence, offer specific arguments regarding the claimed criteria, or identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact”
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
This is a fourth-round decision on the same petition (initial denial, appeal, prior motion to reopen/reconsider, prior motion to reconsider, and now a further combined motion), with the AAO repeatedly declining to reach the Dhanasar prongs because threshold EB-2 classification was never established. The AAO also noted, as an additional independent deficiency, that the motion failed to include the required statement regarding pending judicial proceedings under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(iii).
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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