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 sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the arts and a national interest waiver, relying on claimed authorship of three books/textbooks as evidence of her exceptional ability and standing in the field.
Field: arts · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Director found the Petitioner did not qualify for exceptional-ability classification; the AAO's own findings of plagiarized/falsely-claimed authorship undermined the evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability.
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“further research did not corroborate the Petitioner's claimed authorship of this book”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner submitted plagiarized material (books she claims to have authored) intended to falsely create the appearance of her 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 Petitioner withdrew the appeal after AAO issued a NOID; despite withdrawal, AAO proceeded to make an affirmative finding of willful material misrepresentation (plagiarized/falsely-claimed authorship of three books) that will carry forward to future inadmissibility determinations under section 212(a)(6)(C). No substantive Dhanasar prong analysis occurred since the appeal was resolved via withdrawal, but the underlying evidence discussed (fraudulent authorship claims) related to threshold exceptional-ability and 'well positioned' showings.
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)
- Matter of Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral