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 labor relations consultant, sought to continue work in labor relations/legal consulting in the United States, though the endeavor itself was never substantively addressed because eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification was not established.
Field: labor relations / law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, concluding the academic equivalency evaluation was unreliable and unexplained, doctoral study duration unsubstantiated, and only one letter showing less than one year of experience. Alternatively, as an individual of exceptional ability, Petitioner satisfied only 1 of the 6 required criteria (needed 3): failed license/certification, salary, professional membership, and recognition/achievement criteria; citations and publications found insufficiently probative.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“we conclude that this evaluation is of little probative value in this matter”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record contains no other letters from current or former employer(s) evidencing her work experience in the occupation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value”
AAO decision text - citations publications · discounted
“these three citations do not persuasively establish that the Petitioner has received recognition for achievement of significant contributions”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that she possesses a license to practice the occupation”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- contract revenue · discounted
“the evidence of record does not support such a conclusion”
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
AAO first withdrew the Director's favorable finding on advanced-degree eligibility, then found the Petitioner met neither the advanced-degree nor exceptional-ability threshold, rendering the NIW question moot; it expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-, so no prong analysis occurred despite the case being an NIW petition.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution