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 sought to work in the United States as an entrepreneur engaged in foreign trade, business development, transportation management, and logistics management.
Field: foreign trade, business development, transportation management, and logistics management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability; only met the academic record and ten-years-experience criteria, failing license/certification, salary, membership, and recognition criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“they do not establish that he had a license to practice the profession or certification for a profession”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“Statements made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the support letters do not sufficiently demonstrate recognition for the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions”
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
AAO resolved the case entirely at the threshold exceptional-ability stage (failing 4 of 6 regulatory criteria) and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW analysis, reserving those issues for future consideration. Petitioner raised a due process/constitutional argument regarding USCIS's evidentiary treatment, which AAO rejected for lack of jurisdiction over constitutionality of statutes/regulations.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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