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 entrepreneur, sought to pursue an unspecified business endeavor in the United States under an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver.
Field: business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional (a purported bachelor's degree relied on a '3-for-1 Rule' combining work experience and high school diploma, which does not equal a U.S. bachelor's degree) nor as an individual of exceptional ability (failed to meet at least three of six regulatory criteria). The Petitioner did not contest these findings on appeal and thus abandoned the issue.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“Three-year degrees, even in conjunction with one year of experience, do not equal a U.S. bachelor's degree except under exceptional circumstances.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“reasserts his eligibility under each prong of the Dhanasar framework but does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact”
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
The AAO found the threshold EB-2 classification issue dispositive because the Petitioner failed to address the Director's concerns on appeal (abandoning the issue) and declined to reach any of the three Dhanasar prongs. A footnote notes the appeal could alternatively have been summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v) for failing to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers