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 with a background in real estate and corporate management/consulting, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver; the decision does not reach the merits of his proposed endeavor because he failed to establish the underlying EB-2 classification.
Field: business/real estate and finance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish he holds an advanced degree (insufficient evidence of foreign bachelor's equivalency and of five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience) and failed to establish exceptional ability, meeting only two of the six regulatory criteria due to unreliable academic records, inconsistent/uncorroborated employment letters, and conclusory evaluations.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The irregular font, indentation, and headings, as well as the spelling errors and overall low quality of the document suggest it was informally printed”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these claims appear inconsistent and contradictory”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not describe any impact the Petitioner made to the field or industry as a whole”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- other · discounted
“the evaluation does not offer a cogent analysis of the Petitioner's foreign academic record”
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 reached the merits of the underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree/exceptional ability threshold) and found it not met due to unreliable foreign academic records, inconsistent employment letters, and template-like/conclusory credential evaluations; because this was dispositive, the AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver framework, rendering all three prongs unanalyzed.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Poursina v. USCIS
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