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 graduate architecture student, sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver, pointing to academic scholarships, internship work, and design/research projects (including a housing prototype) as evidence of his standing in architecture.
Field: architecture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner met only the official academic record criterion; scholarships were not shown to be salary/remuneration indicative of exceptional ability, and recommendation letters were found conclusory or insufficiently detailed to show significant contributions to the field, so fewer than three of the six regulatory criteria were satisfied.
How the evidence was treated
- funding · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that disbursements from the scholarship could be considered either salary or remuneration for services”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“it does not appear that the author discusses achievements and significant contributions to the industry”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not provide sufficient evidence of his achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
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 exceptional-ability threshold, expressly declining to reach the national interest waiver analysis because 'further analysis of his eligibility for a national interest waiver would serve no meaningful purpose.' The decision cites NYSDOT only historically as the vacated predecessor to Dhanasar, not as governing law.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy three of six exceptional ability criteria—scholarship not shown to be salary/remuneration indicative of exceptional ability, and letters described intern-level performance rather than significant industry contributions—so NIW prongs were never analyzed.
Before arguing NIW prongs, ensure the underlying EB-2 classification (exceptional ability/advanced degree) is airtight with corroborated, criterion-specific evidence, not general praise letters.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl