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, an industrial technician with a diploma in metallurgy and materials, proposed to found and act as CEO of a project-management consulting company serving the metallurgy industry, offering services such as project planning, compliance management, and quality assessment.
Field: metallurgy / industrial technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner met only one of six exceptional-ability criteria (education), failing to establish experience, licensure, salary, or membership criteria relevant to her proposed CEO/consulting endeavor; her background as an industrial technician/control room operator did not relate to her proposed occupation as a business owner and consultant.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“this is not the occupation in which she proposes to work in the United States”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the card is stamped as a provisional license, and without further evidence of the Petitioner's licensing status we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the screenshot does not provide any information regarding the date or source of the data presented”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“The record does not include evidence that she has education or training as a project or management consultant, entrepreneur, or manager or executive of a small business”
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 explicitly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs because the Petitioner failed the threshold exceptional-ability requirement (met only 1 of 6 criteria), citing INS v. Bagamasbad for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. The decision also notes discrepancies in the dates of the Petitioner's academic credentials that were unexplained in the record.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 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)
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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