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, a horizontal directional drilling machine operator, sought to continue working in the drilling industry in the United States under an EB-2 exceptional ability classification with a waiver of the job offer requirement.
Field: horizontal directional drilling · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii): failed the academic institution criterion (A), the 10-years full-time experience criterion (B), and the recognition/significant contributions criterion (F); reserved judgment on the professional membership criterion (E) since the other failures were already dispositive.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's certificates for one-week and one-day training programs appear to be the mere "certificate[s] of completion"”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence in the form of letters from current or former employers, showing that... at least 10 years”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“achievements or significant contributions to a particular entity are not automatically achievements or significant contributions to a greater industry”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“we reserve our opinion regarding whether the IADD is the type of professional association contemplated by the regulation”
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
This decision never reaches the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs at all; the appeal is dismissed solely on threshold exceptional-ability eligibility grounds (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)), with the AAO expressly reserving opinion on both the remaining exceptional-ability criterion (E, professional membership) and on any Dhanasar prong analysis, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Visinscaia v. Beers
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod