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 wrestling coach, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a national interest waiver of the job offer/labor certification requirement.
Field: wrestling coaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Although the Director found the Petitioner met three of the six regulatory categories of evidence for exceptional ability, the Director concluded in the final merits determination that the Petitioner did not possess a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field, and the Petitioner did not contest this finding on appeal, so it was deemed waived and dispositive.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“meeting the minimum requirements by providing at least three types of initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the individual in fact meets the requirements for exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“meeting the minimum requirements by providing at least three types of initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the individual in fact meets the requirements for exceptional ability”
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 Petitioner argued that Kazarian's two-step framework was inapplicable because 8 C.F.R. 204.6(k)(2) contained no such requirement; the AAO noted this regulation does not exist and instead pertains to a different classification (employment creation aliens). Because the threshold exceptional-ability finding was dispositive and unchallenged, the AAO expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver prongs, reserving them without analysis.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to contest the Director's final-merits finding that he lacked expertise significantly above the norm; issue deemed waived and was dispositive, so NIW prong-1/2/3 analysis was never reached.
On appeal, affirmatively rebut every specific finding in the final merits determination (not just the three-of-six criteria count); unaddressed dispositive findings are deemed waived.
vague
person_focused
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