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 self-described travel management specialist, sought to operate a travel consulting business offering destination branding, marketing, and crisis-management consulting services in the United States.
Field: travel management / hospitality and tourism · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner had not established that 'travel management specialist' (SOC code corresponding to 'travel guide') is a profession requiring a baccalaureate degree, so she did not qualify as an advanced degree professional. The matter was remanded for the Director to determine in the first instance whether she instead qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability.
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner appears to have copied much of the language verbatim from a number of other company's websites”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“he does not claim to have reviewed any employment letters to establish the Petitioner's work history or experience”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“it is unclear whether the Petitioner was able to pursue two bachelor's degrees ... while also working full-time”
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 identified extensive apparent plagiarism in the Petitioner's business plan and website materials (copied verbatim from other companies' sites and articles) and flagged possible willful misrepresentation under section 212(a)(6)(C) for the Director to consider on remand, in addition to unresolved inconsistencies about the Petitioner's claimed simultaneous pursuit of two bachelor's degrees while working full-time. The decision withdrew the prior appellate dismissal on threshold grounds and remanded rather than reaching the Dhanasar prongs.
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. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
AAO found Petitioner failed to establish 'travel management specialist' as a profession under advanced-degree category; remanded for Director to assess exceptional-ability eligibility, flagging plagiarized evidence and possible misrepresentation.
Establish underlying EB-2 classification cleanly (profession or exceptional ability) with original, verifiable evidence before any national-interest waiver analysis is reached.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution