The decision does not describe the specifics of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor; he is described only as an entrepreneur seeking an EB-2 exceptional ability/national interest waiver classification.

Where this case turned

• Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground

Notable

The AAO dismissed the appeal primarily on a waiver theory: the Petitioner only briefed his exceptional-ability eligibility on appeal and did not contest the Director's Dhanasar findings or advanced-degree finding, so those issues were deemed waived and treated as dispositive without substantive re-analysis of any Dhanasar prong. The decision also notes the Petitioner failed to submit the required ETA-750B or ETA-9089 parts J/K/L, meaning he had not properly applied for the waiver at all, cited as an independent alternate basis 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)
• Matter of L-A-C-
• Poursina v. USCIS
• 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