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 an entrepreneur providing graphic design services for children's educational materials and tutoring services in math and physics.
Field: child education services (tutoring and graphic design of educational materials) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for classification as an individual of exceptional ability, satisfying none of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); she did not assert eligibility as an advanced degree professional in the alternative. This threshold failure was dispositive, and the AAO reserved judgment on the national interest waiver prongs entirely.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not establish the Petitioner has a degree relating to the specialty”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters from current or former employers in the record do not establish that the Petitioner has at least 10 years of full-time experience”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not contain documentary evidence that, at the time of filing and continuing through adjudication, the Petitioner was continuously a member”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner does not elaborate on how her achievements and contributions to her prior freight transportation employer demonstrate achievement and significant contributions to the industry or 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
The AAO resolved the appeal entirely on threshold exceptional-ability eligibility grounds (finding none of the six 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) criteria satisfied, including a degree/endeavor mismatch, unrelated employment letters, unproven certification requirements, lapsed/after-acquired memberships treated as an impermissible new set of facts under Matter of Katigbak/Izummi, and an irrelevant recognition letter) and expressly declined to reach any national interest waiver prong analysis, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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