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 software engineer, sought to continue working in software development/engineering in the United States, though the specific national-interest endeavor was never analyzed because the case was resolved on threshold EB-2 grounds.
Field: software engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not contest on appeal that he failed to establish an advanced degree (waived issue), and on exceptional-ability track he met only two of the five claimed regulatory criteria (academic record and ten years' experience), failing membership in professional associations (E) and recognition for significant contributions (F); the motion did not overcome these findings, so the underlying EB-2 classification itself was never established and the Dhanasar/NIW analysis was never reached.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters praised the Petitioner for his professional abilities, they do not indicate how he has been recognized for his achievements”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“show that [ ] was selected for ___ program, rather than recognition of the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“does not show that [the organization] has a membership body comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The new exhibits do not overcome the conclusions we reached when we applied the regulation”
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 decision resolves a combined motion to reopen/reconsider entirely on threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability and advanced-degree issues; the AAO's prior appellate decision expressly reserved the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver analysis because the Petitioner failed to establish the underlying EB-2 classification, and that reservation is reaffirmed here without any prong 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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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