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 confectionery maker/pastry artisan, sought classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver to continue working self-employed as a confectionary artisan in the United States.
Field: confectionery arts / pastry making · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Director found only one of the six exceptional-ability criteria met (professional association membership); on appeal AAO found the Petitioner failed to meet the 10-years-experience criterion (claimed period fell short of ten years, employment letters did not state 'full-time' experience, and no letters supported the self-employment claim), failed to establish comparable evidence for the licensing criterion (did not show licensing was inapplicable or identify comparable evidence), and withdrew the Director's favorable finding on membership because the underlying organization was not shown to be a qualifying professional association and the Petitioner's employment/membership with the entity was undermined by unresolved inconsistencies with a prior extraordinary-ability petition. Because fewer than three criteria were met, the Director's petit could not proceed to a final merits determination or to NIW analysis.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“neither letter indicates that the Petitioner has at least ten years of 'full-time experience'”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“did not demonstrate that... qualifies as a professional association”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Based on these ambiguities in the record regarding the Petitioner's role... the letter alone is insufficient to corroborate the Petitioner's employment”
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
This decision never reaches the NIW prong analysis: the Director denied only on the underlying exceptional-ability classification and expressly did not address the national interest waiver, and the AAO likewise resolved the appeal entirely on threshold exceptional-ability criteria, reserving the significant-contributions criterion and any final merits/NIW determination. The AAO also withdrew (sua sponte) the Director's favorable finding on the professional-association criterion, and relied on an unresolved factual inconsistency from the Petitioner's prior denied EB-1 extraordinary-ability petition (conflicting employment locations/dates) to discount the employer letter under Matter of Ho.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp