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 event planner and entrepreneur, sought to continue work in the events and entrepreneurship sectors in the United States, claiming exceptional ability in business.
Field: event planning and entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
SCOPS determined the Petitioner did not establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). On appeal, the Petitioner failed to specifically identify SCOPS' errors in evaluating the criteria, instead reasserting previously cited evidence (courses, memberships, personal affidavits, employment history, letters of support) without addressing the specific conclusions of the denial.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“She does not, however, address specific conclusions reached by SCOPS concerning her ineligibility for the EB-2 classification.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“She does not, however, address specific conclusions reached by SCOPS concerning her ineligibility for the EB-2 classification.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“She does not, however, address specific conclusions reached by SCOPS concerning her ineligibility for the EB-2 classification.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“She cites evidence previously provided, including courses she has taken, her membership in two events associations, her personal affidavits of her history of employment.”
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 appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) because the Petitioner failed to specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in SCOPS' denial; the AAO did not reach the NIW prongs at all. The Petitioner raised a due process argument regarding SCOPS' failure to issue an RFE or NOID, which the AAO rejected, noting USCIS has discretion to deny without issuing an RFE or NOID. The AAO also noted that SCOPS did not evaluate the Dhanasar prongs because the threshold EB-2 eligibility was not established, and the Petitioner's own appeal brief incorrectly asserted SCOPS had applied a heightened burden to the Dhanasar prongs.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification and, on appeal, did not identify or rebut SCOPS' specific findings of ineligibility as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).
Appeals must directly rebut the specific eligibility findings in the denial; generic recitation of credentials without addressing stated deficiencies guarantees dismissal.
vague
person_focused
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