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 development specialist, sought to continue providing human-development/HR consulting services to businesses, asserting that her methods differed from and exceeded those of typical practitioners in the field.
Field: human development / human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification. Her Brazilian bachelor's degree accreditation was unsupported (unsigned accreditation letter, unclear ordinances/decrees), her post-graduate 'lato sensu' course did not equate to a U.S. master's degree per AACRAO EDGE, and her employment letters failed to establish 10 years of progressive experience (undated, post-filing, wrong pronoun, no duties/full-time info, or unrelated roles such as administrative assistant and logistics intern).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“how the results obtained for individual businesses and clients are indicative of broader implications in the field”
“her specific services "deeply differ from the ones generally provided by ordinary [h]uman [d]evelopment [s]pecialists" and "have been the key to several companies' triumph ...."”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the general secretary's letter is unsigned and therefore it carries little probative weight”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“does not state whether the Petitioner's work was full-time”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“she does not need, nor does she have, a license to practice her profession”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“such payments do not establish what her salary or remuneration is or how it demonstrates exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“appear to have affected her clients or employers but do not substantiate a finding that she impacted the field or industry”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's Dhanasar analysis under the Burbano doctrine but separately withdrew the Director's finding that the underlying EB-2 classification was met, ultimately finding neither threshold eligibility nor NIW eligibility established. One employment letter was noted to refer to the Petitioner using a different gender pronoun, and an accreditation letter was unsigned, undermining its probative value.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Chen v. INS
- INA 203(b)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution