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 intended to work in the United States as a production supervisor overseeing mechanics, installers, and repairers in the automotive/industrial production management field.
Field: industrial production management / automotive manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but satisfied only two of six regulatory criteria (academic record and ten years' experience); failed to establish salary commensurate with exceptional ability, professional association membership, or peer/industry recognition, so did not meet the three-criteria threshold.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“The record does not include evidence showing that the Petitioner's salaries were indicative of his claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“There is no information in the record to indicate that AMA membership requires the attainment of, at minimum, a baccalaureate degree.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“These letters do not reference recognition from peers, government entities, or professional or business organizations that the Petitioner has received for achievements or significant contributions to his 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
AAO withdrew the Director's finding on the academic-record criterion, clarifying that expertise significantly above the norm is a final-merits question, not a threshold criterion issue; nonetheless dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed on three other threshold criteria, making the Dhanasar prongs unnecessary to reach.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria (salary, professional membership, peer/industry recognition), so he never qualified for underlying EB-2 classification, making the NIW moot.
Secure the underlying EB-2 classification first: submit comparative salary data, verify professional-association bona fides, and document concrete peer/industry recognition before litigating NIW merits.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod