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 to work in the United States as a physical therapist and aesthetician.
Field: physical therapy and aesthetics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, meeting only two of the six required regulatory criteria (degree and license), falling short of the required three; the AAO also found in the alternative final merits determination that the totality of evidence did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not indicate that the Petitioner was employed full-time or express how she knows the Petitioner worked as an aesthetician”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“there is nothing in the record to establish that the Aesthetic Professionals Association of Parana is an association of professionals as defined”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of recommendation only discuss the Petitioner's success with a small number of individual clients”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the special tribute the Petitioner received was limited to the local community and the record lacks any information as to the requirements”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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 case concerns exceptional-ability threshold eligibility, not the Dhanasar NIW prongs; the AAO expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver analysis because the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification was not established, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary alternative issues. The AAO also disagreed with the Director's own criteria-counting (finding fewer criteria met than the Director had), yet still affirmed the ultimate denial.
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(k)(2)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his