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 human resources professional, proposed to work in the field of human resources, later asserting she had started a human resources group after filing the petition.
Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner's Brazilian bachelor's degree plus lato sensu diploma was found equivalent to only a U.S. bachelor's degree, not an advanced degree or foreign equivalent master's; she did not claim exceptional ability.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We are also not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments that the proposed endeavor has national importance due to the shortage of human resources professionals.”
“The Petitioner has not established that her proposed endeavor would impact or significantly reduce the claimed national shortage.”
“Because the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing, her claims related to the human resources group she started after the filing of her petition cannot be considered.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner holds the "equivalent of a [b]achelor's degree," rather than a "foreign equivalent degree"”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The threshold EB-2 failure (degree equivalency, based on AACRAO EDGE Brazilian credential analysis) was itself dispositive, but the AAO also separately adopted and affirmed the Director's national importance denial under Burbano, noting the post-filing HR group could not be considered under the Katigbak eligibility-at-filing rule, and reserved all remaining prongs as unnecessary under Bagamasbad/L-A-C-.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Katigbak
- 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