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, an entrepreneur who owns and operates multiple companies, sought EB-2 classification based on exceptional ability in business/entrepreneurship, with a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: entrepreneurship/business (also referenced once as 'human resources') · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner met only one of six exceptional-ability criteria (10 years' experience letters) and failed to meet the salary, membership, and recognition/achievement criteria, so could not satisfy the required three of six criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii).
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“the record does not reflect the salary or remuneration expected for individuals of exceptional ability performing duties comparable to those the Petitioner intends to undertake”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“we conclude the Petitioner is not a member of a professional association and has not met this criterion”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters did not evidence the Petitioner's achievement or significant contributions and expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the record does not adequately describe how the certificate or awards are reflective of an expertise above that ordinarily encountered”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not resumptive evidence of eligibility”
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
The decision was resolved entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability requirement; the AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for not deciding unnecessary issues. One passage inconsistently refers to the Petitioner's field as 'human resources' despite the case concerning general entrepreneurship, suggesting a possible drafting carryover error.
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)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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