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 generalist, sought to work in the United States performing human resources generalist duties, supported by a business plan and letters from parties interested in engaging their services.
Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner met only one of the six exceptional-ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) (the academic record criterion), failing to establish 10 years of full-time experience, a qualifying license/certification, or qualifying professional association membership, and thus failed to meet the required three criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“A letter from a former co-worker on the letterhead of an employer for whom the Petitioner has never worked is not primary evidence”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“we cannot conclude the Petitioner has a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- recommendation letter · ignored
- business plan · ignored
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 the threshold exceptional-ability determination and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. The decision contains an internal inconsistency, referring at one point to 'the occupation of financial analyst' despite the Petitioner being consistently described as a human resources generalist, likely an uncorrected drafting/OCR artifact.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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