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, whose background was in office administration, sought to work in the United States as a financial manager.
Field: financial management / administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Failed both advanced degree pathway (no five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience shown) and exceptional ability pathway (fewer than three of six criteria adequately established); dispositive of the appeal.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's experience was progressive in nature”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“we cannot conclude his course of study as an administrator sufficiently relates to the area of claimed exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“it cannot be concluded that the identity card and registration remained valid through the adjudication of the petition”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the data would not correlate to the years for which the Petitioner offered evidence of his salary”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates the same eligibility claims that he had previously submitted to the Director without meaningfully addressing the evidentiary deficiencies”
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 adopts and affirms the Director's decision under Matter of P. Singh/Burbano adoption doctrine; threshold EB-2 failure alone is dispositive and AAO expressly declines to reach the Dhanasar prongs, though it notes agreement with the Director's Dhanasar analysis in passing. Significant discussion of inconsistent employer letters (manager vs. administrator) and untranslated/mismatched salary evidence.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Chen v. INS
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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