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 aeronautical engineer with over twenty years of experience, sought to continue working in his field in the United States, claiming eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and requesting a waiver of the job offer/labor certification requirement.
Field: aeronautical/aerospace engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director denied the petition finding the Petitioner did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability, but the AAO found the Director failed to address the Petitioner's specific claims and evidence, including confusion over whether he claimed advanced-degree or exceptional-ability classification, and remanded for a properly explained determination.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · ignored
“The evidence of record does not show that the petitioner received an United States advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree or a United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
- certification membership · credited
“The petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet this criterion.”
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 does not reach the merits of the Dhanasar prongs or exceptional-ability criteria; it remands solely because the Director's decision failed to address the Petitioner's specific claims and evidence and lacked sufficient explanation for its determinations (e.g., crediting the certification criterion with only the boilerplate 'submitted sufficient evidence'). The decision also notes the record contains conflicting evidence about whether the Petitioner's degree was from Mexico or Venezuela, an inconsistency the Director never resolved.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was procedurally deficient: it failed to address petitioner's specific claims/evidence on advanced degree/exceptional ability criteria and gave no reasoned explanation for Dhanasar prong findings, requiring remand.
Ensure consistent, clearly identified eligibility claims (degree vs. exceptional ability criteria) in filings; adjudicators must explain findings on each claimed criterion and Dhanasar prong to survive review.
vague
mixed
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