dismissedNOV292023_10B52032023-11-29 · appeal · 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, an information security analyst, sought to work in the cybersecurity field in the United States, though the specific proposed endeavor was not substantively analyzed because the underlying EB-2 classification was not established.

Field: cybersecurity / information security · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to establish possession of an advanced degree (no evidence of master's degree submitted despite RFE) or, alternatively, five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience; also waived her exceptional-ability claim by not raising it on appeal.

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the record does not contain that documentation”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“we will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text
resume experience · 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

AAO declined to reach the Dhanasar prongs entirely (citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-) because threshold EB-2 eligibility was not established; the petitioner also failed to respond to the RFE and attempted to submit new master's degree evidence for the first time on appeal, which was rejected under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena.

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)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer