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 wrestler, proposed to continue working in his area of expertise (competitive wrestling) in the United States.
Field: wrestling · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that the Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability, finding the certification, membership, and recognition criteria evidence insufficient and noting unresolved inconsistencies in the record; remanded for the Director to determine EB-2 eligibility anew.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“such general assertions are not probative evidence and do not demonstrate that these certificates meet the plain language of this criterion.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- awards · discounted
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
Unusual procedural posture: the AAO withdrew the Director's favorable exceptional-ability finding on its own initiative (finding it erroneously granted without a final merits determination), while simultaneously agreeing with the Director's Dhanasar denial, and remanded solely on the threshold EB-2 issue rather than reaching a full Dhanasar analysis. The decision also flags significant age-related inconsistencies in submitted certificates and conflicting letters from the same purported author regarding national team membership/captaincy, invoking Matter of Ho.
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 Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's exceptional-ability finding was unsupported (certificates/membership not shown to meet regulatory criteria) and record contained unresolved material inconsistencies, requiring remand before any Dhanasar analysis could stand.
Establish EB-2 classification with well-documented, consistent evidence before arguing NIW; vague self-employment endeavors and unexplained credential inconsistencies undermine both threshold and merits.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral