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 co-owner of an interior design studio, sought to work as an interior designer in the United States and requested a waiver of the job offer requirement under the EB-2 classification.
Field: interior design · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as either an advanced degree professional (her three-year degree was not shown equivalent to a U.S. four-year degree, and her experience letters lacked the required specificity on duties/training) or as an individual of exceptional ability (failing the experience-letter, license/certification, salary, and recognition criteria). Because she did not qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification, the AAO did not reach the NIW/Dhanasar analysis.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has forfeited or abandoned their ability to address the four-year degree requirement grounded in the Shah decision”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not contain "a specific description of the duties performed by the alien or of the training received."”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner has not provided "a license to practice the profession" or a "certification for a particular profession or occupation" as contemplated by the regulation.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“such simple statements are not enough here”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“they do not indicate that her achievements and significant contributions extend to the industry or field”
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 resolved the appeal entirely on threshold EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree professional and exceptional ability), expressly declining to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, citing Patel v. Garland and Matter of Chen for the principle that agencies need not address unnecessary alternative issues. The decision also applies a forfeiture/abandonment doctrine (Matter of F-C-S-, Moore v. Harper) to multiple arguments the Petitioner did not rebut on appeal, and cites Flores v. Garland for the discretionary nature of NIW adjudication even though discretion was never reached here.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers