dismissedSEP042024_06B52032024-09-04 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center

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 information technology specialist, proposed to establish and serve as CEO of a software and game development business in the United States.

Field: software and game development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner claimed to meet four of six exceptional-ability criteria but the AAO found he met none of the three required: his academic record showed only partial completion of a diploma program, his salary evidence lacked a required foreign-language source document and adequate comparison data, his professional associations were not shown to require a bachelor's-level credential, and his recognition evidence (letters, awards, unauthored articles) did not show significant industry contributions.

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“he did not submit an official academic record showing he has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“we are unable to determine that the comparison salary is in the Petitioner's field of software and game development”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated his membership in a professional association under this criterion”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“his colleagues do not identify, and thus do not demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized for achievements”
AAO decision text
awards · discounted
“the certificates do not show recognition for the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions to his field”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

media · discounted
“we cannot determine whether the articles are marketing material or independent, objective published articles about the Petitioner”
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 AAO resolved the appeal entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability criteria (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)) and expressly declined to reach any of the three Dhanasar prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not reach unnecessary issues. Notable procedural point: the AAO could not credit a salary-comparison letter because the required foreign-language source document was missing from the record, only its English translation.

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)(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)
Flores v. Garland
Kazarian v. USCIS
Matter of L-A-C-
Visinscaia v. Beers

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria: incomplete academic credential, unverified/missing foreign-language salary document, non-qualifying professional associations, and unauthenticated recognition evidence (awards, uncredited articles).

Transferable lesson

Before invoking Dhanasar, ensure the underlying EB-2 classification is airtight: submit complete, authenticated, translated documents proving each claimed exceptional-ability criterion.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer