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 proposed to work as a sales operations manager and consultant, offering courses in sales and using her expertise to expand business communication channels and multiply sales in national and international markets.
Field: sales / business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (10 years full-time experience, salary demonstrating exceptional ability, and recognition for achievements/contributions), so no final merits determination was reached and the Dhanasar prongs were not addressed.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these recommendation letters do not indicate the Petitioner's job responsibilities for the businesses and whether the Petitioner worked full-time”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's statements referencing the recommendation letters are not sufficient to demonstrate this criterion”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered documentation showing that her earnings are indicative of exceptional ability relative to other sales operation managers”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not persuasively explain why the standards do not readily apply to her occupation”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Salario BR survey was limited to a sampling of 200 salaries and did not list the year that the salary was validated”
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 case entirely at the threshold exceptional-ability classification stage and explicitly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues, even though the Petitioner argued on appeal that she satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs.
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 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