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 sought to operate a car dealership in the U.S. reselling electric-hybrid vehicles and renting adapted minivans for people with physical disabilities.
Field: automobile repair/dealership management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner satisfied only one of six exceptional-ability criteria (ten years' experience); salary evidence was inconsistent and unverified, AMA membership was not shown to be limited to professionals, and no evidence of significant recognized contributions to the field was submitted, so three criteria were not met.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“The incomplete and inconsistent information in the record is not sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that the AMA restricts its membership to professionals, as defined in the regulation.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not establish that the Petitioner has made significant contributions to the field or industry.”
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 dismissed the appeal solely on threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability grounds (failing three of six regulatory criteria: salary, membership, and recognition), and expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver analysis under Dhanasar, reserving that issue as moot. The AAO also withdrew the Director's separate finding that the ETA Form 750 Part B was incomplete, finding a properly executed form 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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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