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 sales director with over ten years of experience, sought to continue working in sales in the United States, seeking classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver.
Field: sales (engineering/construction-related sales) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii): he did not establish an official academic record relating to his field, did not provide evidence of a license or professional certification, did not provide evidence of membership in professional associations, and the submitted letters and other evidence did not establish recognition for achievements or significant contributions to the industry or field. He met only the criteria for ten years of employment letters and comparable/high salary.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record lacks evidence demonstrating the certificates submitted are official academic records”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner did not provide evidence of a license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of recommendation did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work was recognized as an achievement or significant contribution to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The news article quotes the Petitioner's estimate ... but does not recognize the Petitioner for any achievement or significant contribution to the industry or field.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- awards · discounted
“the certificates lack specific detail regarding any achievements or 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 did not reach the NIW/Dhanasar prongs because the Petitioner failed the threshold exceptional-ability showing; each of the three unmet regulatory criteria was treated as an independent, alternate basis for dismissal. The Petitioner raised a due process argument that the Director's failure to address the NIW analysis violated procedural due process; the AAO rejected this, finding it lacked jurisdiction to rule on constitutionality of statutes/regulations and that sufficient notice of ineligibility had been given.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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