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, an actor and model, sought to continue working in the U.S. entertainment industry as an individual of exceptional ability.
Field: acting and modeling · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability: the modeling-agency certificate and university enrollment letter did not qualify as an official academic record; the recommendation letters did not show she was employed by the letter-writers or establish ten years of full-time experience; no license/certification existed and the proposed comparable evidence (having an agent) was unsupported; and the MPTF badge did not establish membership in a qualifying professional association. Because the threshold exceptional-ability classification was not met, the AAO did not reach the national interest waiver analysis.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that [the agency] qualifies as a 'college, university, school or other institution of learning'”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence, such as promotional materials or playbills, to establish that the Petitioner has at least ten years of full-time experience”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's general assertions, without more, are not probative evidence and do not demonstrate that having an agent is comparable to obtaining a license or certification”
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 dismissed the appeal entirely on threshold exceptional-ability grounds and expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver (Dhanasar) analysis, stating 'further analysis of her eligibility for a national interest waiver would serve no meaningful purpose.' The decision also flagged a credibility issue under Matter of Ho: a letter claimed the Petitioner held a BA degree, contradicting her signed ETA-9089 listing 'High School' as her highest education level.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral