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 proposed to work as Director of his own industrial automation company, developing and integrating automation systems, control systems, and application software for client facilities.
Field: electrical engineering / industrial automation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish he holds a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent (or that he is an advanced degree professional), and did not meet at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability, failing to satisfy the license/certification, salary, membership, and recognition criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“the bylaws of _do not establish that an individual can be a member of the association”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not sufficiently demonstrate recognition for the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence of an average monthly salary... or other sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner's salary and bonuses... were indicative of his claimed exceptional ability”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- media · discounted
“These articles do not talk about the Petitioner's achievements or significant contributions to the industry.”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner was invited to provide a lecture at the university as recognition for his achievements”
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 dismissed the appeal solely on threshold EB-2 eligibility grounds (failure to establish advanced degree professional status or exceptional ability under at least three of six criteria) and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues; each of the two threshold failures (advanced degree and exceptional ability) was treated as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers