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 motorcycle customizer, sought to continue working in the U.S. as a custom motorcycle specialist.
Field: motorcycle customization · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii): failed to show a qualifying degree relating to the field, failed to show salary/remuneration indicative of exceptional ability at time of filing, and failed to show recognition for achievements/contributions to the field as a whole. Did not meet at least three of six regulatory criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate the relationship between the field of marketing and the Petitioner's claimed exceptional ability of motorcycle customization”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“those earnings took place after the date the current petition was filed”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The evidence suggests his colleagues respect and appreciate him; however, it does not indicate the Petitioner has been recognized”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“since the Petitioner did not complete this course, he did not receive a degree, diploma, certificate of similar award”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner submits a brief referencing the same arguments and evidence previously submitted and considered”
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 found the threshold exceptional-ability requirement dispositive and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs, though it noted in passing that it agreed with the Director's alternative conclusion that the NIW record was insufficient. This is an exceptional-ability track case, not an advanced-degree case.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Chen v. INS
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp