dismissedFEB262021_01B52032021-02-26 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 entrepreneur in the logistics industry, sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver based on his work running logistics companies as president/chairman of the board.

Field: logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria; specifically did not satisfy the ten-years full-time experience criterion at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) because employer letters did not adequately document full-time status and dates, and new letters submitted only on appeal could not be considered.

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“the letters contain a month and year OR a year, rather than full dates (mm/dd/yy) of the Petitioner's employment”
AAO decision text
resume experience · ignored
“the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
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 petition was denied and dismissed entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability classification issue (failure to document ten years of full-time experience); the AAO found the national interest waiver issue moot and never reached the Dhanasar prongs. New employer letters attesting to full-time status were submitted only on appeal and rejected under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena as untimely.

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)
INA 203(b)(2)
INA 291

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility because employer letters lacked required full-time-employment attestations meeting 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B); corrective letters were untimely, submitted only on appeal.

Transferable lesson

Ensure employer experience letters explicitly state full-time status and exact dates before filing/RFE response; curing deficiencies only on appeal is barred under Soriano/Obaigbena.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer