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 sought to work as the founder and CEO of a Florida-based technology company that developed a mobile social media application connecting tourists with local guides in major cities.
Field: technology / mobile application development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)), including ten years of full-time experience, license/certification, salary commensurate with exceptional ability, and professional membership at time of filing; comparable evidence claims were also rejected.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“he did not meet his burden to demonstrate that he had been employed or engaged in this occupation on a full-time basis for at least ten years”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the submitted licenses are unrelated to the Petitioner's intended field of endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record still lacks objective evidence of his salary or other remuneration for services ... as of the date of filing”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“The Petitioner did not explain how these published materials establish his eligibility under this criterion”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“we will not evaluate the Petitioner's claim that membership in CTA establishes his eligibility under this criterion”
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 case entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability classification, finding the Petitioner met none of the six regulatory criteria and expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver analysis, reserving all three Dhanasar prongs as unnecessary under Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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. 103.3
- Matter of Bardouille
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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