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 an EB-2 national interest waiver based on claimed exceptional ability in the decorative lighting industry, relying on certificates, work experience, and a letter from his business partner rather than an advanced degree.
Field: decorative lighting industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria; he failed to show the certificates were official academic records from a qualifying institution, did not establish ten years of full-time experience, and did not submit a license or certification.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“He neither explains how the certificates constitute official academic records nor demonstrates that the documents' issuers include a college, university, school, or other learning institution.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter and other evidence of the Petitioner's employment did not establish his full-time, year-round experience in the occupation for at least 10 years”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The motion to reopen lacks documentary evidence supporting new facts.”
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 decision does not reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs at all; it resolves solely on the threshold exceptional-ability criteria and on the standards governing motions to reopen/reconsider, expressly reserving Dhanasar analysis under Bagamasbad. The Petitioner's argument that the Director misidentified his business partner (confusing her with a document translator) was rejected because the AAO's own appellate decision did not repeat that error and only the 'latest decision' may be reviewed on motion.
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. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod