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 build on his experience with robotics and industrial automation in the steel industry to invent, prototype, develop and deploy robots that would increase safety and reduce manual labor costs in steelmaking.
Field: robotics and industrial automation in the steel industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability: the degree/diploma criterion (submitted vocational certificate unrelated to field, and new GED/diploma evidence rejected as untimely and post-filing), the ten-years-experience criterion (letters lacked sufficient detail on duties, later years appeared administrative rather than technical), and the salary criterion (initial salary below average wage for the occupation; later raise not shown to exist as of filing date).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not submit evidence that this relates to his claimed area of exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not contain a detailed, specific description of the duties performed”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“earning a salary above the average did not demonstrate exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
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 declined to reach the NIW/Dhanasar analysis entirely because the Petitioner failed to establish the threshold exceptional-ability classification; this is a pure threshold-EB2 dismissal with no prong analysis undertaken. The decision also rejected new evidence offered for the first time on appeal (GED diploma, company website printout) under Matter of Soriano, and noted that a post-filing salary increase could not establish eligibility as of the filing date.
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
- 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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
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