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 commercial development specialist in the real estate development field, sought to continue working in that occupation in the United States, claiming exceptional ability in the field.
Field: commercial real estate development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); AAO found criteria (D) and (E) not met, leaving only two (B and C), so the classification failed categorically and no final merits determination or NIW analysis was reached.
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“the record does not reflect the salary or remuneration expected for individuals of exceptional ability performing duties comparable to those the Petitioner intends to undertake”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“an association of realtors, real estate sales professionals, or commercial development specialists is not a professional association”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“it is not clear in the record how recognition in the top give percent of sales force is an achievement of note in the field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters...did not evidence the Petitioner's achievement and significant contributions significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 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
This decision never reaches the NIW/Dhanasar prongs at all; the AAO dismisses solely on the threshold exceptional-ability classification, withdrawing the Director's favorable finding on the professional-membership criterion and finding the salary and achievement/recognition criteria also unmet, leaving the Petitioner short of the required three of six criteria.
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. 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
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