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 decision does not reach the merits of any proposed endeavor because the case was decided on the threshold exceptional-ability criteria and the national interest waiver was never analyzed by either the Director or the AAO.
Field: unknown (redacted; appears to involve athletic activity) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner had not satisfied at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability, finding the degree and membership criteria unsupported, though it remanded due to the Director's failure to explain reversal of previously-granted criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not contain any official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“she made no affirmative claim that those federations are professional associations as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E)”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner was 24 years old when she filed the petition and had documented only about three years of experience”
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 is a threshold exceptional-ability case, not a substantive NIW-prong decision. The AAO remanded not because it reversed the Director's exceptional-ability finding, but because the Director failed to explain in the denial notice why two criteria previously deemed satisfied in the RFE (degree and professional membership) were no longer considered met, denying the Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to appeal. The AAO expressly agreed with the Director's substantive conclusion that the exceptional-ability threshold was not met, but required a new decision addressing all criteria before any final merits determination or NIW analysis could occur.
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. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's denial notice failed to explain reversal of two previously-granted criteria (degree, membership) from the RFE, denying petitioner meaningful appeal opportunity; procedural deficiency required remand.
Ensure denial notices explicitly address every criterion previously flagged as satisfied in an RFE; procedural inconsistency alone can force remand regardless of underlying merits.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral