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 general and operations manager with a background in energy and natural gas operations in Brazil, sought to continue working as a general and operations manager in the United States.
Field: general and operations management (energy/natural gas sector) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish U.S. equivalency of her foreign education as an advanced degree, and the record did not show five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. She also failed to meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria: her bachelor's degree was not shown to relate to the area of exceptional ability, her expired economist registration was not a relevant license/certification, her salary data was unsupported and inapplicable, and letters of support and background materials did not show recognition for achievements or contributions to the field beyond her individual employers.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“his generalized conclusions are insufficient to establish the U.S. equivalency of the Petitioner's education”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not discuss the Petitioner's duties, it cannot be concluded that the Petitioner's work was progressively responsible in nature”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's identity card with the council expired in December 2018, prior to the filing of the 1-140 petition”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not provide sufficient detail concerning how these internal accomplishments constituted recognition for achievements or significant contributions to the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to establish that these figures in the chart apply to her”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“these materials do not mention the Petitioner specifically, or how she has impacted the 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 never reached the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs at all, finding the underlying EB-2 classification (both advanced degree and exceptional ability tracks) unmet and declaring the NIW issue moot; it noted the Director's decision itself lacked any analysis of the underlying classification before denying on NIW grounds. The decision extensively used the AACRAO EDGE database to assess foreign degree equivalency and discounted an expert evaluator's opinion for lacking independent analysis and possibly repeating counsel's or the resume's language.
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 L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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