dismissedSEP182023_06B52032023-09-18 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center

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 Beneficiary, an electrical engineer, was sponsored by a plastic packaging manufacturer; the record does not reach a description of a specific proposed national-interest endeavor because the petition was denied at the threshold EB-2 stage.

Field: electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Petitioner failed to show the Beneficiary had five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience needed for advanced-degree equivalency, and failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria (only two of four claimed criteria were met, and those were not contested effectively on appeal).

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“the evidence submitted...did not show that the Beneficiary has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in his specialty”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the Beneficiary's CREA registration certificate did not constitute his membership in a professional association”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has been recognized by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations”
AAO decision text
citations publications · discounted
“the Petitioner had not established the level of importance of the articles or whether [their] publication made a significant contribution to the field”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's appeal is essentially a reiteration of the documentation and arguments previously offered with its RFE response”
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 never reached the national interest waiver analysis at all, explicitly stating that because the Beneficiary did not qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification (neither as an advanced degree professional nor as an individual of exceptional ability), 'the issue of the national interest waiver is moot.' The decision is dismissed purely on threshold EB-2 grounds, with each of the two threshold failures treated as independent alternate bases for dismissal.

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)
Chen v. INS
Poursina v. USCIS
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer