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 proposed to act as an entrepreneur establishing his own company in California providing housekeeping assistance to individuals and businesses, including older adults, commercial rental properties, and adults with disabilities.
Field: business administration and entrepreneurship (housekeeping services) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability classification but failed to establish at least three of six regulatory criteria: his diploma (Technology in Data Processing) did not relate to his claimed area of exceptional ability in entrepreneurship/management; declarations of employment did not establish ten years of full-time experience; salary comparisons used inapposite occupational categories (Assistant Professor, general population); membership evidence lacked information about the organization; and recognition/achievement evidence was found insufficient, adopting the Director's reasoning.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“this diploma does not relate to the Petitioner's area of exceptional ability in entrepreneurship and management”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the documents do not list whether the employment was full-time or part-time, nor do they describe any skills gained”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record, however, does not include information about this organization”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“we are not persuaded by the advisory evaluation's claim that the Petitioner's diploma is indicative of exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“we will adopt and affirm the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not established he meets this criterion”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the compensation data he presented offer an appropriate basis for comparison”
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 the threshold exceptional-ability classification, finding the Petitioner met only zero (after withdrawing the Director's finding on membership) of six required criteria, and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver analysis as unnecessary given the dispositive threshold failure.
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.
- Chen v. INS
- 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