dismissedAPR012025_04B52032025-04-01 · combined · Texas 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 Petitioner sought to pursue an entrepreneurial venture in production engineering, though the specific nature of the venture is not detailed in this motion decision.

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

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner did not show a single-source foreign equivalent bachelor's degree, and even if the second degree qualified, she completed it in August 2019 and filed in November 2022, insufficient time to accrue the required five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.”

“The articles may demonstrate the importance of entrepreneurship, but the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to show that her specific endeavor would meet the national importance element”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“the record did not show that the Petitioner held a single-source foreign equivalent degree as required”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“repeats verbatim several of her arguments... without explaining why we should find these claims any more persuasive than before”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“we must focus on the Petitioner's particular venture”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

1,581coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This is a second combined motion (motion to reopen and reconsider) following a prior AAO dismissal of an appeal and a first combined motion; the AAO's review was limited to its most recent decision only, per 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii). The threshold degree-equivalency issue (single-source foreign degree plus timing of five years' experience) appears to be the primary basis, with prong 1 national importance also addressed but not clearly marked as independently dispositive.

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. 103.5
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Coelho

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

The second combined motion repeated verbatim arguments without addressing the explained deficiencies: two partial degrees are not a single-source equivalent, five years of post-degree experience was impossible by filing, and general entrepreneurship articles are not her endeavor.

Transferable lesson

Two partial degrees do not combine into an EB-2 equivalent (no H-1B-style rule), and a motion that repeats the same brief with field-level articles cannot cure endeavor-specific deficiencies.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer