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, describing himself variously as a chief executive officer/entrepreneur in commercial printing and vehicle color-changing (car wrapping) and elsewhere as a 'professional pilot of exceptional ability,' sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver.
Field: vehicle wrap / commercial printing business (also claimed as professional piloting) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria. The training certificates were not issued by a qualifying institution of learning and did not relate to the claimed field (degree_endeavor_mismatch); the employment letter did not establish 10 years of full-time experience in the claimed occupation as of filing (experience_not_progressive_or_unrelated); and the record did not establish recognition for achievements/contributions to a clearly identified industry or field, with inconsistent statements about whether the field was piloting or commercial printing/vehicle wrapping casting doubt on credibility.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“they do not appear to have been issued by the type of institution of learning contemplated by the regulation”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not establish whether the Petitioner worked in the referenced position on a full-time basis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not discuss achievements or contributions, significant or otherwise, that the Petitioner made to the 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
The AAO reserved judgment on the Dhanasar national interest waiver criteria entirely because the threshold exceptional-ability classification failure was dispositive. The decision also highlights internal inconsistency in the Petitioner's own filings—claiming exceptional ability as a 'professional pilot' in one document while describing his endeavor as commercial printing and vehicle color changing in another—which the AAO used to diminish the credibility of supporting evidence under Matter of Ho.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- 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