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 accountant, sought to work in accounting/financial management in the United States, initially claiming EB-2 advanced-degree eligibility and, alternatively, exceptional ability in business.
Field: accounting/finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced-degree professional (only a bachelor's degree, no progressive experience) and did not meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria (failed the 10-years-experience, license/certification, salary, and recognition criteria); only two criteria (degree and membership) were satisfied.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“she did not, however, claim that she had ten years of full-time work experience in the field or provide the requested evidence”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“she concedes that she does not yet have a professional license and did not provide evidence that this membership satisfies this criterion's requirement”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“those letters do not discuss the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions to the areas of accounting or financial management”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“she did not establish how the agreed salary figure demonstrates her exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“this evidence does not show she has received the required recognition for significant contributions to her field or industry”
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 found the Petitioner ineligible for the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification (failing 4 of 6 criteria) and, on that basis, declined to reach any of the three Dhanasar NIW prongs, expressly reserving them under INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. Petitioner attempted to use post-filing evidence (a 2023 salary offer and government appointment) to satisfy criteria, which the AAO rejected as impermissible after-acquired eligibility under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi/Bardouille.
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)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner satisfied only 2 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria (lacking license/certification, salary evidence, 10-year experience, and peer recognition), so she never qualified for EB-2 classification, making the NIW analysis unreachable.
Secure and document the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree or 3+ exceptional-ability criteria) with contemporaneous, verifiable evidence before litigating Dhanasar prongs; post-filing facts cannot cure gaps.
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