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 financial manager/consultant, sought to work in the United States in her financial-services occupation, but did not reach the stage of describing a specific proposed endeavor because her underlying EB-2 eligibility was rejected.
Field: financial management/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish eligibility either as an advanced-degree professional (only one year of a four-to-six-year bachelor's program completed, unaddressed on appeal) or as an individual of exceptional ability (met only 1 of 6 required criteria - academic record - while failing experience, license/certification, membership, salary, and significant-contributions criteria, including credibility issues from a major revision of her employment history).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner has not credibly established at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation she seeks.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner did not establish that either of these documents is a license or certification for a particular profession or occupation.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not demonstrate how the self-petitioner's contributions were significant to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the salary survey data does not persuasively show that the Petitioner commanded a salary or other remuneration that demonstrates exceptional ability”
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
The AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver framework because the Petitioner failed at the threshold EB-2 classification stage (both advanced-degree and exceptional-ability routes), citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that it need not make advisory findings on issues unnecessary to the outcome. The decision also raised an adverse credibility finding under Matter of Ho after the Petitioner materially revised her employment history mid-proceeding (claiming to be a 'Financial Analyst' rather than an 'Employee Training Instructor').
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- 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