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 direct and operate a marketing consulting and e-commerce company in Florida, providing digital marketing consulting to corporate clients and distributing products (mattresses, women's protective products, skincare) domestically and abroad.
Field: marketing consulting and e-commerce · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner satisfied only 2 of the required 3 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria (academic record and professional association membership). He failed to establish 10 years of full-time experience (criterion B), a license/certification or comparable evidence (criterion C), a salary demonstrating exceptional ability (criterion D), or recognition for significant contributions (criterion F).
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“These two letters by themselves do not show that the Petitioner has at least ten years of foll-time experience in the field.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his "extensive career" as an entrepreneur is truly comparable evidence”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence to establish how his compensation compares to other CEOs working in digital marketing or e-commerce in the same geographical area”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“they do not recognize the Petitioner for any achievement or significant contribution to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not indicate that the Petitioner's contributions go beyond being a dedicated and competent owner and manager of his own companies”
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 found the Petitioner ineligible for the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification and explicitly declined to reach any of the Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide issues unnecessary to the result. The case thus never analyzes the national interest waiver itself despite being an NIW petition.
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
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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