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 Brazilian financial analyst with prior banking experience, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: financial analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
On second combined motion, the AAO withdrew its prior finding on the 10-years-experience criterion (B) but affirmed failure on criteria A, C, D, E, and F, leaving the Petitioner short of the three-of-six threshold for exceptional ability.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“the record does not indicate the Petitioner is required to obtain this CPA-10 certification in order to practice his profession”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the mere use of word "professional" in the translated version of the Trade Union's bylaws does not automatically establish that the Trade Union is a professional association”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“such evidence only demonstrate recognition for his performance by his previous employer, instead of showing the Petitioner's achievement or significant contributions”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not submit any new evidence for this criterion or contend that our prior decision erred as a matter of law”
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 is a second combined motion decision that never reaches the NIW prongs because the AAO's entire analysis concerns whether the Petitioner meets the threshold 'exceptional ability' regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). The AAO partially granted reconsideration on one criterion (B, experience) and withdrew earlier erroneous statements about criterion (C) requiring government-issued certification, but ultimately still found the Petitioner short of the required three-of-six criteria, so the motion was dismissed without any national-interest-waiver analysis.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 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)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (only criterion B was met on motion), so the case never reached the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver merits analysis.
Before litigating NIW prongs, ensure the underlying EB-2 classification (e.g., exceptional ability criteria) is airtight with objective proof—licensure necessity, ability-linked salary, credentialed professional membership—not just employer praise.
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