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 work in the United States as a chief executive officer, entrepreneur, and software designer, building on his prior experience founding and running companies in Nigeria.
Field: technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria: 10 years full-time experience, salary demonstrating exceptional ability, and recognition for achievements (not reached).
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“Because the Petitioner worked for the company as a graphic artist, this letter does not establish that he has experience in the occupation for which he is being sought.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they do not indicate that he has worked for the companies full-time... these letters do not describe the duties performed by the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“profits earned by a business entity of which the Petitioner is a shareholder do not provide evidence of the Petitioner's income”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not contain comparative data showing that the Petitioner's salary or other remuneration for services demonstrates his claimed exceptional ability relative to others”
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 appeal was dismissed entirely on threshold exceptional-ability grounds; the AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis, reserving it for future consideration. Petitioner's argument that alternative compensation via share ownership demonstrated exceptional ability was rejected under Matter of Soffici's corporate/individual separateness doctrine.
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)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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