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 marketing specialist, proposed to establish and operate a retail consulting, advisory, and training company in Florida, providing market research and marketing strategy services to automotive dealers, convenience stores, supermarkets, and other businesses.
Field: retail marketing / retail consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but established only one of the six regulatory criteria (degree/certificate); failed to show ten years of full-time experience, licensure/certification, salary commanding exceptional ability, qualifying professional association membership, or recognition for achievements, so did not meet the three-criteria threshold and no final merits determination was reached.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not provide a sufficient description of this job to establish that it relates to a retail marketing occupation”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner's unsupported assertion is not sufficient to meet his burden of proof”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he has not met his burden to establish that it qualifies as a professional association”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not describe specific achievements or significant contributions to the marketing field”
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
This is an exceptional-ability track case (not advanced degree), and the AAO expressly declined to reach any of the three Dhanasar prongs, reserving its opinion because the threshold EB-2 classification failed. The Petitioner only satisfied one of six exceptional-ability criteria, so no final merits determination was conducted.
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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- 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