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, serving as CEO of her own consulting company, sought to provide consulting services in her field, with her national-interest-waiver claim resting on her role in that business.
Field: consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner established only 2 years, 3 months, 9 days of post-baccalaureate progressive experience (short of the 5 years needed for advanced-degree equivalency) and satisfied only 2 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria; one criterion (certificates of completion) was found improperly credited by the Director.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the benefits from her proposed endeavor would be limited to her future customers, and not rise to the level of national importance contemplated in Dhanasar”
“the Petitioner's endeavor would result in broader implications to her field beyond the direct benefits to her potential employers or customers”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established
“The Director also concluded that the record did not establish the Petitioner was well-positioned to advance her endeavor”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established
“or that, on balance, that it would be beneficial for the United States to waive the job offer requirement”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner had not shown that these letters were from former employers”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“we will not consider them for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide new facts or establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not explain how these certificates of completion are a license to practice the profession or certification”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
Notable
This appeal reviewed the dismissal of a combined motion to reopen/reconsider rather than the underlying denial directly; the Director's original decision (recounted via footnote) had also found a material, disqualifying change to the proposed endeavor under Matter of Izummi and Matter of Katigbak (eligibility must exist at filing), an issue the AAO faulted the Petitioner for failing to address on motion or appeal.
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
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