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 business manager in the import/export field, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: import/export business management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), specifically rejecting claims under the membership (E) and recognition/significant-contributions (F) criteria, and disagreeing with the Director's finding on the ten-years-experience criterion (B); because three criteria were not met, no final merits determination or NIW/Dhanasar analysis was reached.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters did not sufficiently demonstrate his achievements and significant contributions to the import/export field or industry”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the evidence presented was not sufficient to demonstrate that any of these associations has a membership body comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“he restates and describes the previously submitted evidence, and requests that we review his previously submitted evidence”
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
This is a motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO appeal dismissal; the AAO never reached the Dhanasar NIW analysis because the Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria, expressly reserving the national interest waiver question under INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. The motion was denied largely because the Petitioner merely reasserted prior arguments without identifying legal or factual error, consistent with Matter of O-S-G-.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of O-S-G-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- 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