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 a logistics management consultant, operating her own consulting business, based on classification as an individual of exceptional ability.
Field: logistics management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner did not meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria: her academic record (high school equivalency in general studies) was unrelated to her claimed area of exceptional ability, her documented experience totaled only 8 years 8 months (not 10 years), she failed to show a license specific to her profession, and her salary evidence was insufficient/non-comparable. Because the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification was not established, the Dhanasar NIW prongs were not reached.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The Petitioner's high school degree is for general studies and not related to her claimed area of exceptional ability.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The record only contains supporting evidence for 8 years and 8 months of experience and therefore the Petitioner has not met this criterion.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“she has not provided evidence that this is a license to practice her profession as a logistics manager”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not establish that she has commanded a salary which demonstrates exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“we will not consider the submitted documentation as comparable evidence”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the recommendation letters do not establish she has been recognized for 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
AAO expressly reserved all three Dhanasar prongs because the underlying exceptional-ability classification failed; it also invoked a waiver rule (grounds not raised on appeal are waived, citing Matter of O-R-E-) to limit its review to only the criteria the Petitioner contested. A footnote cites Flores v. Garland on the discretionary nature of NIW denials, joining a circuit split. The AAO also declined to conduct a final merits determination but volunteered that the aggregate record would not have supported exceptional ability regardless.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution