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, an architect, proposed to work through his own company to advance sustainable and innovative architectural projects, collaborating with businesses, institutions, and government entities on environmental concerns, sustainable design, educational seminars, and green building projects.
Field: architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability and met four of six regulatory criteria (academic record, experience letters, certification, membership), but the record did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in architecture, nor sufficient evidence of a salary demonstrating exceptional ability, under the final merits determination.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Director found this evidence inadequate to demonstrate significant contributions to his field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate that he has obtained a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate that he has obtained a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“there is insufficient evidence to show the Petitioner has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability”
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 expressly reserved discussion of the Dhanasar national interest waiver framework because the threshold exceptional-ability determination alone was dispositive, per INS v. Bagamashad and Matter of L-A-C-. The petitioner met four of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability but failed the final merits determination.
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(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers