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 security consultant and CEO of his own business, sought to continue work in security, administration/management, and entrepreneurship in the United States.
Field: security consulting / entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not claim a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree, so advanced-degree eligibility was not established; for exceptional ability, the AAO found he met only one of six regulatory criteria (down from the Director's two), which is short of the required three, so eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability was not established either.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“None of the letters discuss the Petitioner's work experience, nor does the Petitioner explain how his duties in these positions are relevant”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- other · discounted
“The income statements his accountant provided are not substantiated with independent and objective evidence, such invoices, bank statements, and tax returns”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“The Petitioner does not challenge that determination on appeal or provide any additional evidence of his eligibility under this criterion”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- awards · discounted
“the evidence does not indicate that these achievements and contributions were to the industry or field”
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 affirmatively withdrew the Director's favorable finding on the ten-years'-experience criterion (reducing satisfied criteria from two to one) and, having found the Petitioner ineligible for the underlying EB-2 classification, declined to reach any of the three Dhanasar prongs, expressly reserving them under INS v. 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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
- 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