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 establish a security services business in the United States, serving as its general director and security management specialist.
Field: security management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability under five of six regulatory criteria but AAO found he met none: academic diplomas lacked proper certified translations and were not shown to be from institutions of learning related to his field; employer letter did not establish full-time experience in the proposed occupation; membership evidence did not show a genuine professional association; and recommendation letters were conclusory as to recognition for achievements. Because fewer than three criteria were met, AAO did not reach the final merits determination or the Dhanasar prongs.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not include an official academic record for any of the diplomas, as required under the criterion”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the certificate lacks sufficient details of his job duties to determine whether his experience was in the occupation being sought”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not show that... is comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not identify, and thus demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to his industry or field”
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 the appeal purely on threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability grounds (failure to meet at least three of six regulatory criteria, largely due to missing/mismatched translator certifications for foreign-language diplomas, membership documents, and letters), and expressly reserved opinion on all three Dhanasar prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues.
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)(3)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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