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 intended to work as a security management specialist in the construction industry, seeking EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver.
Field: construction / security management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed eligibility under five of six exceptional-ability criteria (academic record, 10 years' experience letters, salary, membership, recognition) but only established membership (criterion E); the other four were not established, so fewer than the required three of six criteria were met and the underlying EB-2 classification was not established.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not speak to any achievements or significant contributions that the Petitioner has made to the construction industry”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- resume experience · discounted
- degree · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has again submitted much of the same documentation previously included in the record”
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 Director's finding that the Petitioner failed to establish exceptional-ability threshold eligibility (only 1 of 5 claimed criteria met) was dispositive; the AAO explicitly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that adjudicators need not resolve unnecessary issues. New declarations submitted on appeal from architects, engineers, and a public defender were found to speak only to character and work quality, not industry-wide achievement or contribution.
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
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)); only membership criterion was met, rendering NIW analysis moot.
Secure underlying EB-2 classification first: satisfy three exceptional-ability criteria with evidence of specific achievements/contributions, not merely character references or credentials.
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