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 information technology professional with experience managing databases and technical solutions for employers and clients, sought to continue working in the U.S. IT field; the AAO never reached the specifics of his proposed endeavor because he failed the threshold exceptional-ability classification.
Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but met only 2 of 6 regulatory criteria (academic record, ten years' experience); failed to establish licensure/certification, salary demonstrating exceptional ability, professional association membership, or recognition for achievements/significant contributions to the field, and did not claim advanced-degree professional classification.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that his Microsoft Certified Professional certificate is a license to practice the profession”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the submitted wage surveys... did not establish whether the listed wages were based on an hourly, weekly, monthly, or annual basis”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work was recognized as an achievement or significant contribution to the industry or field”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner resubmits letters previously provided in the response to the Director's RFE”
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 resolved the appeal entirely at the threshold exceptional-ability stage, finding the petitioner failed at least three of six regulatory criteria, and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis, stating such analysis 'would serve no meaningful purpose.' Each threshold failure was treated as an independent and alternate basis for dismissal, and an issue (the salary criterion) was deemed waived for not being addressed with specificity on appeal.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of V-K-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to meet at least three of six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (license/certification, salary evidence, and peer/industry recognition), so classification under 203(b)(2)(A) was not established and Dhanasar analysis was never reached.
Secure the underlying EB-2 classification first: submit criterion-specific, objective evidence (license equivalence, comparable salary data, industry-wide peer recognition) before national interest arguments matter at all.
vague
person_focused
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