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 accountant and auditor, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver, based on a business plan related to her accounting expertise.
Field: accounting/auditing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability because she did not meet at least three of the six regulatory criteria; specifically, she did not establish ten years of full-time experience or sufficient evidence of recognition for significant contributions to the field.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the positions which the Petitioner did properly document on her Form ETA 750B and resume comprise less than five years of work experience”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“which is not sufficient to carry the Petitioner's burden”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“this evidence does not show that her work has had an impact beyond her employers, clientele, and their projects”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner's business plan and expert opinion state the Petitioner possessed eight years of experience as an accountant. This is inconsistent”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
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
This decision does not reach the NIW analysis at all; the appeal was dismissed solely on threshold EB-2 exceptional ability grounds (failure to establish 10 years of experience and failure to establish recognition for significant contributions), with the AAO expressly reserving the national interest waiver issue under INS v. Bagamasbad. The AAO also found credibility issues/inconsistencies regarding the Petitioner's claimed years of experience, discrediting a corroborating employment letter and applying Matter of Ho's discrepancy-resolution standard.
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. 103.3
- 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)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Ho
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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