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 hospitality manager with experience overseeing hotel operations and large-scale events, sought to continue working in the hospitality/events field in the United States; the AAO never reached the specifics of her proposed endeavor.
Field: hospitality management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not claim to be an advanced degree professional and had not earned a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent. The AAO withdrew the Director's finding that she met three of six exceptional-ability criteria (salary, membership, recognition/contributions), leaving her with only three criteria met, and in any event found in the final merits determination that she did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in her field.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the record does not indicate that any of these organizations require their members to have attained at least a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence does not identify significant contributions she has made to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“these do not indicate significant contributions to the field more widely”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner's salary was less than the median pay reported for hospitality managers in the Occupational Outlook Handbook”
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 AAO disagreed with the Director's finding that three regulatory criteria (salary, membership, recognition/contributions) were met, effectively lowering the Petitioner's showing from five to three criteria met, but still affirmed denial on the final merits determination. Because the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability classification was not established, the AAO expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver (Dhanasar) prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide 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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod