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, who specializes in automotive paintless dent repair (PDR), intended to operate a repair facility in the United States.
Field: automotive paintless dent repair · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of six exceptional ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); academic record, professional association membership, and recognition/contributions criteria were not met.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record does not include supporting documentation demonstrating that the provided certificates originated from a college, university, school, or other institution ofleaming.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The documentation in the record does not indicate that NAPDRT membership requires the attainment of, at minimum, a baccalaureate degree.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the submitted letters serve as objective evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to his field.”
AAO decision text - 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
Petitioner failed at the threshold exceptional-ability stage, so the AAO declined to reach the Dhanasar three-prong analysis entirely. AAO also noted the appeal itself could have been summarily dismissed for failing to identify specific errors under 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(v), but proceeded to address the merits anyway. AAO also withdrew (in petitioner's favor) the Director's finding on the professional-association criterion, though this did not change the outcome since other criteria still failed.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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