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 proposed to work as an international tax consultant for American companies by establishing and operating her own company in Florida, providing tax management, financial research, planning, and related financial advisory services.
Field: international tax consulting / fiscal analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to meet at least three of six exceptional ability criteria; salary evidence unsupported and membership/registration evidence did not qualify as professional association or postdated filing.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“she has not demonstrated exceptional ability beyond that which is ordinarily encountered in the occupation”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“this association is not "professional" within the meaning of the regulation”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide other supporting documentation to establish how her compensation compares to other professionals”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates the same eligibility claims that she had previously submitted to the Director without meaningfully addressing the evidentiary deficiencies”
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 found the threshold exceptional-ability classification unmet and declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW analysis, though it noted in a footnote that it agreed with the Director's Dhanasar analysis anyway, characterizing the Petitioner's appeal as merely reiterating prior claims without new evidence.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution