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-petitioning CEO/entrepreneur in the vinyl record and music industry, sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: music/vinyl record business (CEO/entrepreneur) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner needed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria but the AAO found only criterion (A) (academic record) met. Criterion (B) failed because employer letters did not establish 10 years of full-time experience as a CEO/comparable occupation, and one letter directly contradicted the Petitioner's claimed job titles/dates. Criterion (C) failed because the Petitioner conceded no license is required for his entrepreneurial occupation. Criterion (F) failed because the awards appeared to be internal employer awards and the support letters did not show recognition by peers, governmental entities, or professional/business organizations. The AAO reserved judgment on criterion (E) and never reached the Dhanasar NIW analysis.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not indicate whether the Petitioner worked in a full-time capacity”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the certificate does not establish that the occupation requires the license or certification possessed by the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the record does not establish that such awards ... are evidence of recognition ... by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters themselves do not purport to be recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry”
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 on the exceptional-ability threshold classification (failing criteria B, C, and F), explicitly declining to reach any of the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs. One employer letter directly contradicted the Petitioner's claimed job history, which the AAO cited under Matter of Ho as casting doubt on the reliability of the record generally.
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. 103.3
- 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)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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