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 inventor and entrepreneur, sought to develop wearable technology and related business ventures to improve public transit access for individuals with disabilities in the United States.
Field: engineering / public transit / inventions · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Advanced degree qualification was deemed waived because not addressed on appeal; exceptional ability claim failed because Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of six regulatory evidentiary criteria (education, experience letters, license/certification, salary, membership, recognition), and totality review confirmed he did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The Petitioner did not submit supporting documentation to show that he has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“These documents alone, however, do not demonstrate that the Petitioner had at least ten years of full-time experience”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“The Petitioner does not claim to meet this criterion, and the record does not include any licenses or certifications”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“the record does not include independent documentation detailing or even summarizing the functionality of his inventions”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the documentation is not supported by explanations of how the awards demonstrate that the Petitioner is recognized for achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not support these claims”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner submits documentation previously included in the record, as well as evidence showing the active status of his company”
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 found the appeal deficient for failing to specifically identify erroneous conclusions per 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), and separately deemed several exceptional-ability criteria waived because the Petitioner did not claim to meet them. Because the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability classification failed, the AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that it need not make advisory findings on 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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
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