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 work as a software engineer and IT architect, developing a project/company providing loyalty and rewards programs, marketing/advertising, and a virtual currency platform.
Field: information technology / software architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner claimed to meet five of six exceptional-ability criteria (employer letters, license/certification, salary, membership, recognition) but the AAO found he satisfied none of the five contested criteria, agreeing with the Director that fewer than three of six criteria were met, rendering him ineligible for the underlying EB-2 exceptional ability classification and thus ineligible for the NIW.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the organization he owned was actively doing business during the period specified”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that this document is the equivalent of a professional license or certification”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“he has not established that the sum is greater than what is normally expected in his field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not describe significant contributions beyond those employers and clients to the broader industry or field”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
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 found the Petitioner ineligible at the threshold exceptional-ability stage (fewer than three of six regulatory criteria met) and expressly declined to reach the three Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad for the proposition that agencies need not decide issues unnecessary to the result reached.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
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