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 supply chain specialist and entrepreneur in the event services industry, sought to continue work in that field in the United States, seeking exceptional-ability EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver.
Field: supply chain / event services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The AAO reaffirmed that its prior decision correctly applied the exceptional-ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and that the Petitioner had not established eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability; a reference to 'extraordinary ability' was deemed a harmless typographical error.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“our prior decision discusses the evidence the Petitioner identifies on motion and explains the deficiencies in detail”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“our prior decision discusses the evidence the Petitioner identifies on motion and explains the deficiencies in detail”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
Notable
This decision resolves a motion to reconsider by finding a prior AAO decision's reference to 'extraordinary ability' (instead of 'exceptional ability') was a harmless typographical error, not a legal error; it does not substantively re-analyze the NIW prongs, instead holding the Petitioner failed to identify any legal or factual error in the prior decision as required for a motion to reconsider.
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. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of O-S-G-
- Section 291 of the Act
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