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 paralegal with legal experience in Venezuela and the United States, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a national interest waiver, though the specifics of his proposed endeavor were not reached.
Field: legal services/paralegal · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional (paralegal occupation does not meet 'profession' definition, waived on appeal) nor as an individual of exceptional ability, having established only two of the required three criteria (degree and membership), failing to establish ten years of full-time experience or recognition of achievements/significant contributions to the industry.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“these documents do not provide the dates of his employment, whether he worked on a full-time basis, or the duties of his positions”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not list his duties in his various positions, state if he worked full-time, or discuss the duration of his employment”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- degree · credited
- other · discounted
“it is unclear who authored the reviews, who the reviews are about, and when the reviews were written”
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 did not reach any Dhanasar prong analysis because the petitioner failed the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability classification; the AAO explicitly reserved opinion on prongs one and three despite Petitioner's appellate arguments, citing INS v. Bagamasbad to avoid advisory findings. Case turned entirely on whether experience letters/comparable evidence satisfied 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B).
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(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 classification as individual of exceptional ability, meeting only 2 of 6 required criteria; comparable evidence for 10-years'-experience criterion lacked required duty descriptions, dates, and full-time status confirmation.
Secure proper regulatory-compliant employer letters (duties, dates, full-time status) before relying on comparable evidence; threshold EB-2 eligibility must be solid before any NIW/Dhanasar argument is reached.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp