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 self-described entrepreneur who co-founded companies installing CCTV, network, and computer systems, sought to work in the field of business computing in the United States.
Field: business computing / computer science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree (occupation not shown to be a profession; flawed credential-equivalency evaluation; inconsistent, identical, or unsubstantiated employment letters failing to show five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience) and failed to establish exceptional ability (met only degree criterion; membership evidence postdated filing; no evidence of significant scientific contributions/recognition).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“The identical language in the submitted letters undermines their probative value.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner held membership in I- or any other professional association at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record contains letters from authors who offer general praise about his abilities”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“we conclude that the opinion letter provided lends little probative value to the matter here”
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 never reaches the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, finding the NIW issue moot after determining the Petitioner failed the threshold EB-2 classification (neither advanced degree professional nor exceptional ability). The decision devotes extensive analysis to a credential evaluator's misapplication of the H-1B 'three-for-one' experience-to-education ratio (improperly borrowed from 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5)) and to identical/inconsistent employer letters suggesting fabricated or unreliable evidence of work experience.
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)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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