dismissedOCT262022_02B52032022-10-26 · combined · 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, a marketing manager, sought to continue his marketing work in the United States, asserting it would benefit the U.S. economy by increasing money flow, contributing to GDP, and employing U.S. workers.

Field: marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner did not provide an academic evaluation establishing his Philippine bachelor's degree's equivalency to a U.S. baccalaureate, and even if he had, he had not demonstrated five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience at the time of filing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“as the Petitioner had not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. we concluded that he had not established he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide an academic evaluation to establish his diploma's equivalency to a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“he had not demonstrated at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty at the time he filed the petition”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“The review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the prior adverse decision.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This is a motion decision reviewing the AAO's own prior dismissals of an appeal and two motions; the dispositive issue throughout was the Petitioner's failure to establish threshold EB-2 eligibility (degree equivalency and five years of progressive experience) rather than a fresh analysis of the Dhanasar prongs, which were only referenced via footnote to the earlier appellate decision.

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. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
INA 203(b)(2)
INA 291

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer