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 proposed to establish an event production and set design company in the United States, in which he would serve as CEO and as a set and exhibit designer.
Field: set and exhibit design / event production · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)); AAO found only zero criteria met after withdrawing the Director's findings on two criteria, and never reached a final merits determination.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The Petitioner's high school diploma does not relate to his area of exceptional ability, set and exhibit design.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“his work experience responsibilities are not in his relevant occupation being sought, a set and exhibit designer”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the work badge and union card do not show that the Petitioner has a license or certification for his intended occupation of set and exhibit design.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he has not demonstrated ABRACOPEL has a membership body comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not identify, and thus demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to his industry or field”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner's salary is not based on his indicated area of exceptional ability, set and exhibit designer”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
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 withdrew two of the Director's favorable criterion findings (license/certification and salary) while affirming denial, ultimately finding the petitioner met zero of the six exceptional-ability criteria. Because the underlying EB-2 classification failed, the AAO expressly reserved judgment on all three Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad to avoid 'purely advisory findings.'
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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