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 sought to serve as CEO of her own U.S. company, providing leadership for the company's operations, growth, and profitability.
Field: business/company management (chief executive officer) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); the AAO found the ten-years-experience, license/certification, salary, membership, and recognition criteria all unmet, leaving only the academic-record criterion satisfied.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“This information does not indicate that the Petitioner has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation of chief executive officer.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“Registering a company under the supervision of a regional council is not a license to practice a profession or a certification for a particular profession or occupation.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Without evidence demonstrating that she has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates her exceptional ability, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the evidence, however, does not demonstrate that has a membership body comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“we will adopt and affirm the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not established she meets this criterion.”
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
The petition failed at the threshold exceptional-ability stage (only 1 of 6 criteria met), so the AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver framework at all; the threshold failure, not any prong, was dispositive. The Director's decision had only briefly mentioned the NIW issue and focused on exceptional ability, and the AAO's dismissal rests entirely on that classification failure.
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)(2)
- Chen v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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