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 general operations manager, sought to work in business administration/operations management in the United States, though the specific proposed endeavor is not detailed in this remand decision.
Field: business administration / general operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Director never determined whether the Petitioner qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree professional or exceptional ability) before proceeding to the Dhanasar analysis. The AAO found the record insufficient to establish this, citing a degree-endeavor mismatch and unresolved discrepancies in the Petitioner's claimed progressive experience.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the evaluation addresses the Petitioner's foreign degree in social communication, a specialty that appears to be dissimilar to business administration”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's concurrent employment from January 2012 to February 2014 raises questions regarding whether she worked either position on a full-time basis”
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
This decision does not reach the NIW Dhanasar prongs at all. The AAO remanded because the Director skipped the threshold determination of underlying EB-2 classification eligibility (advanced degree or exceptional ability) before conducting the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis. The AAO identified a degree-field mismatch (social communication degree vs. business administration endeavor) and unresolved discrepancies between an academic evaluation and an employer letter regarding the Petitioner's job titles and dates of employment, including simultaneous full-time positions and employment predating her degree, which is inapplicable under the 'progressive experience' requirement of 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2). No opinion was expressed on the ultimate outcome.
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)
- Matter of Ho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director skipped threshold determination of advanced-degree/exceptional-ability eligibility before conducting Dhanasar analysis; unresolved degree-specialty mismatch and employment discrepancies made decision unreviewable.
Ensure underlying classification eligibility (degree specialty, five years progressive experience, full-time status) is clearly established and internally consistent before NIW merits are even considered.
vague
person_focused
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