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 Beneficiary sought to continue work in the United States as a karting commercial research and business development manager/racing team manager for a karting distributor.
Field: karting/motorsports business development and racing team management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Beneficiary was found not to meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria: no official academic record tied to the field, no evidence of full-time ten-year experience (letters did not state 'full-time'), no salary/remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability (post-filing evidence, below-median salary), no professional association memberships, and internal employer certificates/letters insufficient to show industry-wide recognition.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide an official academic record showing that the Beneficiary received his degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“these letters ... do not state that the Beneficiary's experience was 'full-time'”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not presented evidence showing that the Beneficiary holds membership in professional associations”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence does not show that his specific work has had an impact beyond his employers, their karting clientele, and their particular projects”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“these certificates reflect internal recognition from the Beneficiary's employer and therefore they do not rise to the level of "achievements and significant contributions"”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary has commanded a salary that demonstrates his exceptional ability”
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 Director's denial did not reach the NIW issue at all, addressing only exceptional-ability classification; the AAO found the NIW question moot once the threshold classification failed, and expressly treated each of the five exceptional-ability criteria discussions as an independent alternate basis for dismissal.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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