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, a geologist, proposed to develop a website and mobile software application offering a digital education tool for teaching and learning about rocks and geological content in schools.
Field: geology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability but only established 2 of 6 required criteria (academic record and professional association membership); failed to establish recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- certification membership · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he does not state that the Petitioner's work had an impact that reached beyond those projects to the broader industry or field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“A petitioner must establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of filing.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“it is unclear whether the Petitioner had even begun work on his project prior to the filing of the petition”
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
AAO dismissed on threshold exceptional-ability grounds alone and explicitly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide issues unnecessary to the result. Also notable: AAO credited two criteria on appeal that the Director had rejected (professional association membership) but still found the petitioner short of the required three of six criteria.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to meet 3 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria (only education and membership satisfied); recognition-for-achievement letters showed personal talent, not field-level impact, so NIW analysis was never reached.
Secure the underlying EB-2 classification first: submit contemporaneous, criterion-specific evidence (e.g., peer/industry recognition of actual contributions) before RFE-stage improvisation, or the Dhanasar merits will never be considered.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp