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 restaurant industry entrepreneur and executive in China, sought to continue her business activities in the United States as an individual of exceptional ability with a waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: restaurant industry / entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's findings that Petitioner met the license/certification and recognition-for-significant-contributions criteria, and found the salary criterion also unmet, leaving her with only two of six required criteria. Even considering the evidence in the aggregate, the final merits determination found she did not possess expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the personal recognitions described and documented in the letters do not demonstrate that she has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the record lacks any independent information as to the requirements associated with these awards and certificates”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the awards, certificates, and media articles show the Petitioner's success with her ventures, they also do not establish the Petitioner's recognition for significant contributions to the industry”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The record includes copies of her business licenses which only establish that her businesses are allowed to operate at specific addresses in China”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she has commanded a salary indicative of exceptional ability in satisfaction of 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
AAO disagreed with the Director's favorable findings on two exceptional-ability criteria (license/certification and recognition for significant contributions), effectively lowering the Petitioner's met criteria below the required three, and independently found the salary criterion unmet including rejecting reliance on shareholder dividends per Matter of Soffici. Because the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability determination was dispositive, AAO expressly declined to reach any NIW/Dhanasar prong analysis.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish EB-2 exceptional ability: AAO withdrew two criteria the Director had granted (license, recognition for contributions) and rejected the salary criterion, leaving only one of six met, making the record insufficient even before NIW analysis.
Secure underlying EB-2 classification first with independent, verifiable evidence (not self-descriptive awards or corporate dividends) before building an NIW national-importance argument.
vague
person_focused
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