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, described as an entrepreneur with a background related to journalism (membership in the Society of Professional Journalists), sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability and a national interest waiver, though the specific proposed endeavor is not described in the decision.
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability, meeting only one of the six regulatory criteria (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)) rather than the required three; criteria B, C, and E were not met.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“Rather than provide new evidence which included the missing information required by the plain language of the regulation, the Petitioner...again summarizes her prior experience.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“Without evidence that SPJ requires its members to hold a bachelor's degree (or the foreign equivalent), the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“she has not identified which evidence we should consider under this criterion, but she has not explained how it is comparable”
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 decision concerns failure to establish the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification (only 1 of 6 regulatory criteria met) rather than any NIW prong analysis; the AAO expressly reserved the national interest waiver prongs (Dhanasar analysis) because the threshold classification was not met, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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