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 and general business manager with a background in marketing, sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver.
Field: business management/marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner met only two of the six exceptional-ability evidentiary criteria (A and B); her evidence for membership in a professional association (E) and recognition for achievements/significant contributions (F) was found insufficient, so she failed to establish exceptional ability as an EB-2 threshold matter.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“it appears that members must run a business, but are not required to hold a baccalaureate degree or otherwise meet the definition of profession”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently established that she was the actual recipient of any of the awards”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not explain her "significant contributions" with sufficient detail”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“because the Petitioner obtained her master's degree in business administration after the filing of the petition, it would not be considered”
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 expressly declines to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver analysis because the Petitioner failed the threshold exceptional-ability determination, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not resolve unnecessary issues. Much of the analysis concerns discrepancies between award photographs/captions and the issuing company's own website, which the AAO treated as unresolved ambiguities counting against the Petitioner under Matter of Ho.
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)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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