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 initially listed her prospective occupation as 'entrepreneur' with no description of duties, and on appeal asserted she would instead seek employment in accounting and operate an unspecified 'substantial business.'
Field: entrepreneurship / accounting (unclear) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not sufficiently identify the substantive nature of her occupation, failed to meet at least three of the six exceptional-ability evidentiary criteria, and thus did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented what her area of exceptional ability actually is in order to demonstrate that her program of study relates to it”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the evidence provided does not include letters that comport with the evidentiary requirements for this criterion”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not adequately explained how the evidence required under this criterion does not readily apply to her occupation”
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 - certification membership · discounted
“Since the Petitioner did not raise this issue on appeal, we deem the issue waived”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- awards · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide evidence of her recognition for achievements . . . to show that she met this criterion”
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 noted that counsel repeatedly used male pronouns for the female Petitioner in the RFE response and appeal brief, stating this raised questions about 'the accuracy of the documents and whether the information provided is correctly attributed to this particular petitioner.' The AAO also declined to reach the NIW prongs entirely, resolving the case solely on threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility, with several evidentiary criteria deemed waived for lack of specific argument on appeal.
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. 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)
- 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