Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director had not properly evaluated whether the petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability — the threshold determination required before reaching the national interest waiver analysis.
A business manager sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver based on advanced degree status and, alternatively, exceptional ability. The Texas Service Center Director found the petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on a third-party credential evaluation, then denied the NIW on the merits. The AAO withdrew that finding because the evaluator had not reviewed employment letters required to establish progressive post-baccalaureate experience and there were unexplained discrepancies in the degree description. The Director also never addressed the petitioner's exceptional ability claim. The AAO remanded for the Director to properly evaluate the EB-2 threshold question before reaching the NIW analysis.
What failed: The credential evaluation from USA Evaluations was insufficient because it relied only on the petitioner's resume — not employer letters — to document work experience needed for an equivalent master's degree, and it contained an unexplained discrepancy about the petitioner's undergraduate degree. The petitioner's bachelor's degree alone did not satisfy the advanced degree requirement. The NIW prongs were not met on the record presented.
Takeaway: When relying on a combination of a bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience to establish an advanced degree equivalent for EB-2, petitioners must submit formal employer letters documenting that experience — a credential evaluator's reliance on a resume alone is insufficient. Any discrepancies between original foreign academic documents and the evaluator's characterization must be explained with objective, independent evidence.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The credential evaluation from USA Evaluations was insufficient because it relied only on the petitioner's resume — not employer letters — to document work experience needed for an equivalent master's degree, and it contained an unexplained discrepancy about the petitioner's undergraduate degree
- The petitioner's bachelor's degree alone did not satisfy the advanced degree requirement
- The NIW prongs were not met on the record presented.
USA Evaluations credential evaluation concluding petitioner held U.S. MBA equivalent — rejected because the evaluator did not review employment letters to verify work experience and relied solely on petitioner's resume for professional experience, and there was an unexplained discrepancy between the diploma (which listed 'administration') and the evaluator's characterization (bachelor's in business administration with a major in management).
Petitioner's bachelor's degree diploma and transcript — insufficient on its own to demonstrate an advanced degree under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A).
The Director accepted a third-party credential evaluation as proof of an advanced degree equivalent without verifying that the evaluator had reviewed employment letters to confirm progressive post-baccalaureate work experience, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B).
The Director failed to address the petitioner's alternative claim for classification as an individual of exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
The Director proceeded to the NIW analysis without properly establishing the underlying EB-2 threshold classification.
Completed
I-140 filed
Business manager
Completed
Texas Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2021-06-24
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the case because the Director had not properly evaluated whether the petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability — the threshold determination required before reaching the national interest waiver analysis.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee