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 business operations specialist, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver, but the AAO never reached the substance of her proposed endeavor because it found her ineligible for the underlying EB-2 classification.
Field: business administration/operations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding sua sponte, concluding the Petitioner failed to establish U.S. equivalency of her foreign bachelor's/master's degrees, failed to show 5 years post-baccalaureate progressive experience at filing (advanced degree route), and met only one of six required criteria for exceptional ability (education), with insufficient evidence on 10-years experience, license/certification, salary, professional membership, and recognition criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the advisory opinion and generalized evaluation information do not offer any analysis of the Petitioner's foreign academic record.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not include a letter from this employer persuasively establishing the dates of her employment or that the position was full-time.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“Certificates of training or participation are not the same as a certification to practice a profession.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
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 Director had found the Petitioner qualified for the underlying advanced-degree EB-2 classification and had met prongs 1 and 2 of Dhanasar, denying only on national importance/prong 3; the AAO instead sua sponte withdrew the threshold classification finding on de novo review, concluding the Petitioner did not qualify as either an advanced-degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability, rendering the NIW question moot and expressly declining to reach the Dhanasar prongs (citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-).
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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