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 decision does not reach the merits of the proposed endeavor; the Petitioner, a photographer, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver, but the petition failed at the threshold classification stage.
Field: photography · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but failed to establish at least three of six regulatory criteria: she did not document ten years of full-time experience, did not show PPA membership qualifies as a professional association (photography does not require a baccalaureate degree), and did not provide specific evidence of recognition for achievements/contributions to the field. Only the academic degree criterion was satisfied.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“Her own resume and other statements do not show at least ten years of full-time experience.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner has not shown that PPA qualifies as a professional association.”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“This general statement does not identify any specific evidence of recognition; any specific achievements or significant contributions.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner cannot meet her burden of proof by asserting, without further explanation, that unidentified evidence in the record meets the regulatory requirements.”
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 petition failed at the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability classification stage (initial advanced-degree-professional claim was deemed abandoned), so the AAO expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver prongs at all: 'Therefore, we need not consider the evidence and arguments that the Petitioner presented in support of her national interest waiver claim.' The AAO also withdrew the Director's favorable finding on one criterion (recognition for achievements) even though the appeal was otherwise dismissed, illustrating de novo review can cut against the petitioner on points the Director had granted.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria: no proof of 10 years full-time experience, PPA membership not a qualifying professional association, and vague unsupported recognition claim.
Establish underlying EB-2 classification (advanced degree or exceptional ability) with concrete, dated, criterion-specific evidence before NIW national-interest arguments are even considered.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral