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 development manager and consultant with a background in public administration, sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver; the specific proposed endeavor is not elaborated in this motion decision, which focuses on threshold eligibility.
Field: business development / public administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The credential evaluation for the Petitioner's foreign 'Master's degree' did not adequately explain the equivalency determination, and post-filing evidence (book contribution, conference registration, board membership, alumni certificate) could not establish exceptional ability because eligibility must be shown as of the filing date.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the USCES evaluation did not adequately explain its conclusion that the Petitioner's foreign diploma is equivalent to a United States degree”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“Eligibility must be established at the time of filing.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“has not identified new facts supported by documentary evidence to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen”
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 was the Petitioner's seventh motion to reopen, all denied; the AAO also reversed the Director's finding that the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree/exceptional ability) had been met, finding it unestablished, which independently precluded reaching the NIW prongs in depth.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution