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 continue serving as a research subject in a long-term NIH study of the health outcomes of carriers of a rare genetic trait, based on her status as one of a small identified cohort of carriers.
Field: medical/genetic research (research study subject) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The AAO found the petitioner did not satisfy any of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability nor establish that her evidence (letters describing her genetic trait and research participation) was 'comparable evidence' under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii); she failed to show her genetic status was an 'occupation' or reflected expertise significantly above the ordinary. This threshold failure was dispositive, and the AAO declined to reach the national interest waiver analysis.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner has not shown that being a ... is an 'occupation' rather than a biological characteristic.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Claims that USCIS should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are not persuasive.”
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
Unusual factual basis: petitioner claimed exceptional ability based on being a carrier of a rare genetic trait and long-term NIH research study participant, not a professional occupation; AAO rejected the claim that her biological status could constitute comparable evidence of exceptional ability, and declined to reach the NIW Dhanasar analysis because the threshold EB-2 classification failure was dispositive.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to meet any of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability or show her genetic trait/study participation was comparable evidence tied to an 'occupation,' making her ineligible for underlying EB-2 classification; NIW prongs were never reached.
Establish underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree or exceptional ability via regulatory criteria) first; comparable evidence claims must explain why standard criteria don't apply and why substitute evidence truly matches them.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp