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 proposed to establish and serve as general and operations manager for a business providing radiological protection management consulting, advising, and training services in-person and digitally.
Field: radiology / radiological protection management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not qualify as advanced degree professional (uncontested) and failed to establish exceptional ability, meeting only 1 of 6 regulatory criteria (official academic record); failed on ten years experience, license/certification, salary, and membership criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“these letters do not establish the Petitioner's employment related to the occupation outlined in the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not asserted, and the record does not otherwise demonstrate, that a bachelor's degree is required for employment”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted figures or supporting evidence for the purported average salary”
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 dismissed on threshold exceptional-ability grounds alone (only 1 of 6 criteria met, after withdrawing Director's finding on the license/certification criterion but still finding against Petitioner), and expressly declined to reach the NIW prongs, reserving that issue entirely.
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(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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner satisfied only one of six exceptional-ability criteria (academic record); employer letters lacked job descriptions and salary comparison was unsupported, so underlying EB-2 eligibility failed and NIW prongs were never reached.
Secure underlying EB-2 classification first: ensure employer letters detail duties matching the proposed occupation and salary comparisons use contemporaneous, verifiable data.
vague
person_focused
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