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, proposed to develop wearable technology and related inventions to assist people with disabilities in using public transit systems in the United States.
Field: engineering / public transit technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner waived the advanced-degree-professional issue by not addressing it on appeal, and failed to establish exceptional ability, satisfying none of the six regulatory criteria (academic record, ten years' experience, license/certification, salary, membership, and recognition for achievements) with sufficient probative evidence.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“Therefore, the record does not satisfy this criterion.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“we deem this issue to be waived, and we will not address this criterion further.”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate his recognition for achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text - patents · discounted
“the record does not include independent documentation detailing or even summarizing the functionality of his inventions”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
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 on threshold EB-2 grounds (failure to establish exceptional ability and waiver of advanced-degree argument) without ever reaching the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, expressly reserving them as unnecessary under INS v. Bagamasbad. The decision also involved an initial denial for an incomplete ETA Form 9089, which was cured on appeal but did not affect the ultimate outcome.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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