MAY052026_01B5203Decided 2026-05-05I-140

The AAO remanded an EB-2 NIW petition for a manufacturing engineer because SCOPS denied the case without properly…

Remanded Useful for: appeal strategy
EB-2-NIWField: manufacturing optimization consulting / industrial engineeringOrigin: Brazil
The outcome

Good news — this case cleared the first bar

The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded the case because SCOPS failed to adequately address the employer letters and other evidence supporting the petitioner's claim of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree. SCOPS must now fully evaluate that evidence and, if EB-2 eligibility is established, address the national interest waiver merits.

In plain English

A Brazilian industrial engineer and manufacturing optimization consultant filed an EB-2 NIW petition, claiming eligibility through a bachelor's degree plus five or more years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree. SCOPS denied the petition, stating the petitioner lacked the required credentials, but failed to acknowledge or analyze employer letters from Brazil and Argentina documenting his experience from 2014 to 2022. The AAO found this analysis inadequate and remanded the case, instructing SCOPS to fully evaluate the degree and experience evidence. If EB-2 eligibility is confirmed, SCOPS must also separately evaluate the national interest waiver claim.

What worked & what failed

What worked: The petitioner submitted a diploma, transcripts, a credential evaluation, and employer letters from multiple managers describing his engineering roles over eight years—this body of evidence was considered sufficient by the AAO to warrant full evaluation on remand.

What failed: SCOPS denied the petition without adequately engaging with the submitted employer letters, providing no explanation for why the experience evidence was insufficient—a procedural failure that led to the remand.

Takeaway: When building an EB-2 NIW case based on bachelor's degree plus five years of experience, submit detailed employer letters meeting the regulatory requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1); officers must affirmatively address this evidence, and a bare conclusion without analysis is grounds for reversal on appeal.

For RFE responses & petition building

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

  • The petitioner submitted a diploma, transcripts, a credential evaluation, and employer letters from multiple managers describing his engineering roles over eight years—this body of evidence was considered sufficient by the AAO to warrant full evaluation on remand.

Evidence that wasn't enough alone

  • SCOPS denied the petition without adequately engaging with the submitted employer letters, providing no explanation for why the experience evidence was insufficient—a procedural failure that led to the remand.
Find more EB-2-NIW cases with similar evidence patterns →
How the case moved

Completed

I-140 filed

Manufacturing optimization consultant and industrial engineer

Completed

SCOPS — Denied

Initial decision: Denied.

Completed

Appeal to the AAO

Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.

2026-05-05

AAO decision — Remanded

The AAO withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded the case because SCOPS failed to adequately address the employer letters and other evidence supporting the petitioner's claim of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to a master's degree. SCOPS must now fully evaluate that evidence and, if EB-2 eligibility is established, address the national interest waiver merits.

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.

Authorities the office relied on
ChawathePetitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence
Christa'sAAO reviews questions of law and fact de novo