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 environmental and sustainability development professional with experience including landfill biogas capture and flaring projects, sought EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability and a waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: environmental and sustainability development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner met three exceptional-ability criteria, concluding Petitioner met only the ten-years-experience criterion; certificates from a non-institution-of-learning entity did not satisfy the academic record criterion, and professional-association memberships and recommendation letters did not establish achievements significantly above those ordinarily encountered, so Petitioner failed to meet at least three of six criteria and was categorically ineligible for EB-2 classification.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“is not an institution of learning”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not evidence any achievement and significant contributions significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- awards · discounted
“did not evidence any achievement and significant contributions significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the 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
AAO identified that the underlying Form I-140 was signed via autopen and thus 'not properly filed,' holding this alone could dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits, but proceeded to analyze exceptional-ability eligibility as an independent, alternate basis for dismissal. AAO also withdrew the Director's final merits determination as legally erroneous (it evaluated criteria the Director had found unmet) and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver analysis because the Petitioner failed the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability requirement.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- 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