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 computer programmer and self-described entrepreneur, proposed to advise U.S. companies on IT and general operations management and/or to provide software development services to U.S. businesses (including restaurant management software) through his Florida company.
Field: information technology / computer programming, business/general management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as either an advanced degree professional (no U.S. or foreign bachelor's degree, or bachelor's plus five years progressive experience) or as an individual of exceptional ability (met at most 0-1 of the six regulatory criteria, with academic record, experience, and certification criteria all found insufficient). Because he did not meet the underlying EB-2 classification, the AAO declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver framework at all.
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not substantiate that he prospectively intends to offer IT-related business services through T-”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not provide sufficient details about the experience the Petitioner gained through his employment”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“varies significantly from those described by the Beneficiary in statements about his employment with E-”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“without more, this evidence is insufficient”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not demonstrate that employment in his proposed occupations require a license”
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
Although the Director had found the proposed endeavor met the substantial merit and well-positioned prongs of Dhanasar (failing only national importance and the balancing prong), the AAO expressly declined to reach any part of the three-prong Dhanasar analysis because it found the Petitioner failed the threshold EB-2 classification (neither advanced degree professional nor exceptional ability). The AAO also devoted extensive analysis to inconsistencies about the Petitioner's actual occupation (IT entrepreneur vs. general manager) and to a dissolved business entity (T-) whose business plan was submitted as if still operative.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3(c)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- 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