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 intended to own and operate three small businesses in the United States, relying on his claimed exceptional ability as a business owner/entrepreneur.
Field: small business ownership/auction and retail businesses · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner claimed exceptional ability under four of the six regulatory criteria (experience, license/certification, professional membership, and recognition) but failed to satisfy any of them due to inconsistent employment letters, an expired license issued to a business rather than the Petitioner, memberships that did not qualify as professional-association or licensure evidence, and a lack of evidence of significant contributions to the industry. Because fewer than three criteria were met, no final merits determination or Dhanasar analysis was undertaken.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the record lacks sufficient evidence to corroborate his assertions, and, the Petitioner therefore, has not met his burden of proof”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion letters contain discrepancies regarding the dates of employment for the Petitioner”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“these documents do not establish the Petitioner is licensed to practice a profession as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C)”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the record on appeal lacks additional probative evidence...and instead resubmits many of the same documents and assertions provided in the NOID”
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 expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs because the Petitioner failed the threshold exceptional-ability showing, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. The decision also highlights material discrepancies between a 2022 and a 2024 employment verification letter regarding the Petitioner's business ownership dates.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
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