Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO granted the motion and remanded to the Director because the petitioner successfully demonstrated advanced degree equivalency via updated career certificates, but the Director had never analyzed the national interest waiver under the Dhanasar three-prong framework.
The petitioner, a biomedical materials developer, sought an EB-2 national interest waiver after the Director denied his petition for failing to establish advanced degree equivalency or qualify for NIW. On motion, the petitioner submitted revised career certificates detailing his specific duties and time allocation, which the AAO found sufficient to prove five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree. The AAO found the Director had never analyzed the NIW evidence under the Dhanasar three-prong framework—an independent legal error. Consequently, the AAO granted the motion and remanded to the Director to perform a proper Dhanasar analysis. The case is significant for showing that EB-2 eligibility and NIW analysis are separate determinations that must each be independently conducted.
What worked: Submitting updated, more detailed career certificates that specified the petitioner's exact job duties and the percentage of time devoted to biomedical materials engineering and alloy development was the key evidence that established the advanced degree equivalency required for EB-2 classification.
What failed: The original career certificates were too vague—they listed employers and dates but did not provide enough information about specific duties or time allocation to demonstrate progressive experience in the specialty. The Director also never reached the NIW merits, so that evidence remains unevaluated.
Takeaway: When proving advanced degree equivalency through experience letters, ensure each letter details specific job duties, the progressive nature of the work, and the proportion of time spent in the relevant specialty. Also note that EB-2 eligibility and the NIW three-prong Dhanasar analysis are legally separate determinations—both must be addressed even if one is unresolved.
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
- Submitting updated, more detailed career certificates that specified the petitioner's exact job duties and the percentage of time devoted to biomedical materials engineering and alloy development was the key evidence that established the advanced degree equivalency required for EB-2 classification.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The original career certificates were too vague—they listed employers and dates but did not provide enough information about specific duties or time allocation to demonstrate progressive experience in the specialty
- The Director also never reached the NIW merits, so that evidence remains unevaluated.
Updated Certificates of Career from two employers listing specific job duties in biomedical materials engineering and alloy development, including percentage of time devoted to each responsibility, sufficient to establish five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree.
Original August 2017 Certificates of Career that lacked sufficient detail about specific duties and time allocation to demonstrate progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty.
The Director denied the petition without ever applying the Dhanasar three-prong analytical framework to the national interest waiver evidence.
The Director incorrectly conflated EB-2 classification eligibility with the separate Dhanasar NIW analysis, stating that because the petitioner did not qualify for EB-2 the NIW prongs could not be assessed.
Completed
I-140 filed
Biomedical materials developer specializing in alloy development
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2019-06-25
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO granted the motion and remanded to the Director because the petitioner successfully demonstrated advanced degree equivalency via updated career certificates, but the Director had never analyzed the national interest waiver under the Dhanasar three-prong framework.
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