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 pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical regulatory consulting services and generating jobs in HUBZone areas in New Jersey and New York.
Field: pharmacy / pharmaceutical services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability track. SCOPS found she met three of six criteria (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (C), (E)) but failed the final merits determination: evidence did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in pharmaceutical services. AAO adopted and affirmed SCOPS finding. Petitioner's appeal did not provide additional documentation and relied on an anticipated postgraduate degree not yet obtained at filing, which the AAO declined to consider.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“she did not demonstrate how her education and training set her apart from others in the field of pharmaceutical services”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“she is well regarded by her colleagues, but they lack relevant details showing that her credentials and skills rise above the average licensed pharmacist”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“such evidence does not reflect a degree of expertise significantly above that in her proposed field”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“we cannot consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition”
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 dismissed the appeal solely on the threshold exceptional ability finding, explicitly reserving and declining to reach the NIW prong analysis under Matter of Dhanasar. The Petitioner's appeal brief relied in part on a postgraduate degree expected to be completed later in 2026, which the AAO rejected as a post-filing fact. The Petitioner also argued she was denied a fair chance to obtain her immigration benefit, but the AAO found the brief did not meaningfully dispute SCOPS' specific findings. The service center adjudicator was SCOPS (Service Center Operations) rather than a named service center.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner met 3 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria but failed final merits determination to show expertise 'significantly above' that ordinarily encountered in pharmacy; support letters and credentials were generic, not distinguishing.
Secure EB-2 classification first with concrete, corroborated evidence of expertise exceeding field norms; generic collegial praise and standard licensure will not satisfy exceptional-ability final merits review.
moderate
economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · economic_growth_generic
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his
- The Petitioner, a hematology-oncology fellow, proposed to conduct research on the interplay of comorbidities affecting c