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 senior project manager, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, but the underlying proposed endeavor was not discussed in this motion, which addressed only threshold eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability.
Field: project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
On the prior appeal, the AAO found the Petitioner satisfied only two of the six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria (having withdrawn one the Director had granted) and separately failed the final merits determination; on this motion to reconsider, the Petitioner failed to show legal or factual error in that finding regarding professional membership (E) and recognition for significant contributions (F).
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established his membership in the IEEE.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters ... do not detail how the Petitioner's contributions ... amount to significant contributions to the broader industry”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“his education, which is equivalent to a high school degree ... demonstrated the minimum qualifications to perform in his field but were not sufficient”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that we erred as a matter of law or policy in our prior decision”
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 a motion to reconsider addressing only threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)); the AAO's prior appeal decision never reached the NIW prongs because the threshold classification failure was dispositive, and this motion likewise does not engage the Dhanasar prongs.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Coelho
- 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