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 project manager who worked on client 'Upgrade' projects involving development and functional teams, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver. The decision does not further elaborate on the specific proposed endeavor because the case was resolved on threshold exceptional-ability grounds.
Field: project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Director found the Petitioner satisfied only two of the six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria; on appeal the Petitioner argued he also met 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) (recognition for achievements and significant contributions), but the AAO found the submitted recommendation letters conclusory and insufficient to establish recognition or significance of his contributions, so he failed to meet the required minimum of three criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not show how his contributions have impacted or influenced the field or industry in a significant manner”
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 the threshold exceptional-ability criteria (finding the petitioner satisfied only two of the required three regulatory categories, primarily discounting recommendation letters as conclusory) and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, reserving those issues as unnecessary to the disposition, 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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod