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 entrepreneur, sought to develop and execute solar-powered and renewable energy infrastructure projects, including electricity infrastructure, solar-powered fingerprinting technology, and erosion/shoreline control projects, primarily in Nigeria.
Field: solar and renewable energy / infrastructure development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The AAO found the Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional or as an individual of exceptional ability, having failed to meet at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii); this threshold failure was dispositive and the national interest waiver prongs were never reached.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“his statement does not constitute evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“business registrations do not qualify as either a license to practice his profession or a certification for a particular profession or occupation.”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the project earnings to not constitute the Petitioner's salary nor do the documents indicate that the Petitioner received personal remuneration for his services.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the new evidence does not overcome our previous findings or demonstrate eligibility for the claimed criteria.”
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
This decision is a motion (reopen + reconsider) that never reaches the NIW prongs; the entire analysis concerns whether the Petitioner meets the threshold exceptional-ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)-(F). The AAO invokes Matter of Ho regarding unresolved inconsistencies between a supporting letter and the Petitioner's own resume/Form 9098 concerning length of employment, and denies both motions for failing to identify overlooked evidence or cite legal error.
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. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability classification (met at most 2 of 6 regulatory criteria) and offered no new evidence or legal error to overturn prior findings; NIW analysis never reached.
Secure the underlying visa classification first with consistent, corroborated evidence; motions must identify overlooked evidence or legal error, not merely restate prior arguments.
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