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 decision does not describe the specifics of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as the appeal was resolved on the threshold EB-2 classification issue before reaching the Dhanasar analysis.
Field: operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Director found the employer letters did not detail the Petitioner's work duties, so they failed to show years of progressive experience needed to equate to an advanced degree; Petitioner did not contest this on appeal and instead argued only the Dhanasar prongs, so the issue was deemed abandoned. AAO also separately noted the Petitioner's academic record did not establish a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not show years of progressive experience in the field”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner resubmitted the same evidence he already provided to evidence his eligibility”
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
AAO found the Petitioner abandoned the threshold EB-2 classification issue by not contesting it on appeal and jumping straight to the Dhanasar prongs, making the threshold failure dispositive and the merits waiver analysis unreached. AAO also flagged in a footnote that summary dismissal would have been an alternative independent basis because the Petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact per 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v). A further footnote noted, without deciding, that the Petitioner's academic record likely did not establish a foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree, flagged for future filings.
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)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- 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