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 serve as chief executive of an online platform providing business education courses to individuals.
Field: business education / online platform · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but failed to satisfy any of the three required regulatory criteria (degree, license/certification, salary, membership, or recognition), so EB-2 eligibility was not established.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record on appeal lacks probative documentation or a detailed explanation to overcome the Director's evaluation of this issue”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not described how this license authorizes him to work as a chief executive or entrepreneur”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record lacks evidence such as industry reports, comparisons to similar executives, or other probative evidence”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that membership in these associations relates to his job as chief executive”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record on appeal lacks evidence to support a determination that he has made a significant contribution to the industry”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates the arguments made in the RFE”
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 reserved discussion of the Dhanasar national interest waiver framework entirely because the Petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 exceptional ability eligibility, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues. All three prongs were left unanalyzed as a result.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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