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 Beneficiary, founder and president of a U.S. automotive parts wholesale and distribution company, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in business based on his supply-chain management experience, with an accompanying national interest waiver request.
Field: automotive parts wholesale / international supply chain management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Beneficiary did not meet at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria: the employment letters lacked dates and full-time confirmation, the Texas sales permit was not a professional license/certification held by the Beneficiary, the salary criterion was unrebutted as unmet, and the membership certificates were not issued to the Beneficiary. Even assuming three criteria were met, the record did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters are deficient in that neither letter reflects the date it was written”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“neither of these certificates were issued to the Beneficiary”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they offer little discussion as to how his expertise is significantly above that of others in the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the evidence does not clearly illustrate how obtaining these two agreements are indicative of his exceptional ability relative to others”
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 reversed SCOPS's threshold exceptional-ability finding on de novo review, concluding none of the disputed criteria were satisfied, and expressly reserved the Dhanasar NIW prongs since the underlying EB-2 classification was not established. The Petitioner unsuccessfully argued that an unpublished district court decision (Mukherji v. Miller) rendered USCIS's final-merits step unlawful; the AAO rejected this both as non-binding and as arising under the extraordinary-ability (not exceptional-ability) category.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
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