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 owns and serves as president/CEO of a meat distribution business in Minnesota and intends to continue working in that role in the United States.
Field: meat industry / meat distribution business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed three of six exceptional-ability criteria (10 years experience, high salary, recognition for contributions), but AAO found the experience letter and W-2s did not establish full-time employment, and recognition evidence pertained to small-business export achievement in 1996 rather than significant contributions to the meat industry; only the salary criterion was met, so fewer than three criteria were satisfied, and in any event the totality of evidence did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the statements detail his wages and other compensation, but do not indicate his employment was full-time”
AAO decision text - other · credited
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not suggest that the Petitioner received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the evidence indicates recognition for his small business contributions as an exporter, instead of for his significant contributions to his industry”
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 withdrew SCOPS's favorable findings on two of the three claimed exceptional-ability criteria (10-years full-time experience and industry recognition), leaving only the salary criterion satisfied, and therefore found the Petitioner failed the underlying EB-2 classification. Because this threshold failure was dispositive, the AAO explicitly declined to reach the National Interest Waiver (Dhanasar) analysis, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- 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