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 geologist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver; the specific proposed endeavor is not detailed because the decision addresses only threshold exceptional-ability eligibility.
Field: geology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner met only two of the required three exceptional-ability criteria (official academic record and professional association membership); the AAO found he did not establish the recognition-for-achievements criterion, and new criteria/evidence raised on motion were either not 'new facts' or were improperly raised for the first time on motion, so the minimum three-criteria threshold was not met.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“New eligibility claims advanced for the first time to an administrative appellate body, even at the motion to reopen stage, are not properly before us.”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“he does not explain in the motion how a first-place finish in an eighth-grade competition amounts to recognition for achievements”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he simply identifies these factors without offering any new facts relating to them, they are not considered new facts for this motion”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“he simply identifies these factors without offering any new facts relating to them, they are not considered new facts for this motion”
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 decision addresses only a motion to reopen following a prior appellate dismissal on exceptional-ability threshold grounds; the NIW/Dhanasar prongs were never reached because eligibility failed at the threshold EB-2 stage both before the Director and on appeal. The AAO draws a sharp distinction between 'new facts' proper for a motion to reopen and impermissible 'new bases for eligibility' raised for the first time on motion, citing Matter of M-F-O- and a D.C. Circuit case (Philipp v. Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz) on issue preclusion at successive appellate stages.
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)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Coelho
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp