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 sought to continue working in the fashion industry in the United States, citing the field's broader economic significance.
Field: fashion · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but failed to satisfy at least three of six regulatory criteria; licensure and significant-contributions claims were waived/insufficiently briefed on appeal, and academic-records and salary criteria were not contested and thus waived.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her future employer(s) and clients”
“she has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“she did not identify the comparable evidence that the Director should consider”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Since the Petitioner did not address this issue with specificity on appeal, we deem the issue waived”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO questioned the accuracy and attribution of counsel's assertions due to inconsistent naming and pronoun usage in the record, invoking Matter of Ho to require independent resolution of discrepancies. Threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability failure was dispositive, but AAO nonetheless briefly addressed prong 1 national importance in the alternative.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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