dismissedMAR272024_04B52032024-03-27 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 CEO in the field of online instruction, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in business and a national interest waiver based on his work developing and selling online courses.

Field: online instruction/business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

The Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F)); the Director's finding that the ten-years-experience criterion was met was withdrawn by AAO due to inconsistent evidence, leaving the Petitioner with no criteria satisfied. This threshold failure was dispositive and precluded reaching the Dhanasar/NIW analysis.

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“Without more, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has met the plain language of this criterion.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“Neither letter specifies whether the Petitioner was employed in a full-time capacity.”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“Without evidence of the membership requirements, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion.”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner has also not explained how salary information for online professors in Brazil compares to his remuneration.”
AAO decision text
awards · discounted
“it does not establish a significant contribution to his industry, as any contributions were limited to”
AAO decision text

All 7 evidence items

media · discounted
“several of the articles are specifically identified as "advertising," designed to promote the Petitioner and the company.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters from other individuals in the field only provide recognition of the Petitioner's contributions to his customers, not to the industry in general.”
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

AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on the ten-years-experience criterion due to inconsistent record evidence, leaving the Petitioner with zero satisfied exceptional-ability criteria; because the threshold EB-2 classification was not established, the AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver framework at all, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.

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.

Flores v. Garland
Kazarian v. USCIS
Matter of Ho
Matter of L-A-C-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability evidentiary criteria (academic record, employer letters, salary, professional membership, recognition), making him ineligible for underlying EB-2 classification; NIW/Dhanasar prongs were never reached.

Transferable lesson

Secure the underlying EB-2 classification first: submit clean, consistent, well-documented evidence meeting at least three regulatory exceptional-ability criteria before litigating national interest waiver merits.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer