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 intends to continue working in the United States as a financial analyst, seeking EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability plus a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: financial analysis / banking · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii). His certification evidence relied on an inconsistently translated foreign resolution that post-dated his certification and filing, he did not show his occupation required certification, and his remuneration evidence (salary comparisons) lacked a valid, comparable time period and occupation match. Claims regarding degree, decade of experience, membership, and recognition were reiterations already considered and rejected in prior decisions.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's arguments do not overcome our previous determination that he did not sufficiently demonstrate how his financial analyst occupation corresponds to the resolution description”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that the evidence presented on motion refers to a similar time period and occupation that allows us to make a relevant comparison”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“While the Petitioner disagrees with our prior conclusions, he does not demonstrate our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceeding.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“We have already considered and analyzed the Petitioner's evidence in the petition under the preponderance of evidence standard and found it insufficient to demonstrate eligibility”
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 the fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider in the case; the AAO's analysis concerns only the threshold exceptional-ability classification (translation defects, timing of a certification requirement, and unsupported salary comparisons) and never reaches the NIW/Dhanasar prongs because the threshold denial is dispositive.
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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Coelho
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