dismissedNOV202017_01B52032017-11-20 · motion_reopen · Nebraska Service Center

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 business development manager and consultant, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, though her specific proposed endeavor is not detailed in this decision.

Field: business development / consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The petitioner failed to submit a credentials evaluation establishing her foreign master's degree as equivalent to a U.S. advanced degree, and did not meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria (only satisfied the degree criterion at 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A); new evidence of recognition under (F) was untimely and insufficient).

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“The record, however, does not contain an academic credentials evaluation to establish her foreign degree's equivalency to a United States degree”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“webpages and email are insufficient to demonstrate that she has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner's motion does not include new evidence to show that she satisfies any of those additional criteria”
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

This is the fifth motion to reopen in a long-running case; the AAO had previously found, contrary to the Director, that the petitioner did not even qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree or exceptional ability), so the NIW/Dhanasar analysis was never reached: 'we need not consider whether she is eligible for a national interest waiver under the framework set forth in Dhanasar.' Also notes that evidence of a co-chair role and conference participation post-dated the petition's filing date and was thus immaterial regardless of sufficiency.

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)(1)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer