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, working as a mental health assistant/residential technician, sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a waiver of the job offer requirement to continue similar work in the United States.
Field: mental health assistance · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner claimed to meet four of the six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria but the AAO found he failed to establish at least three, specifically rejecting the official-academic-record criterion (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)) and the salary/remuneration criterion (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D)); AAO did not need to reach the remaining two claimed criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish that the presented certificate represents an "official academic record"”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that ... qualify as "a college, university, school, or other institution of learning"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“simply submitting evidence of remuneration from an employer is insufficient to meet this criterion”
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 expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, resolving the appeal entirely on the antecedent exceptional-ability threshold, treating the two rejected criteria as independent and alternate bases 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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy even three of six regulatory criteria for exceptional-ability classification (academic record and salary criteria both rejected), so NIW prongs were never reached.
Secure the underlying EB-2 classification first: submit genuine official academic records and comparative wage evidence before attempting any national-interest waiver argument.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his