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 carpet weaver, sought to continue work in carpet weaving in the United States as an individual of exceptional ability, claiming authorship of a book as evidence of his expertise.
Field: carpet weaving · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability because the book he submitted as evidence of his scholarly authorship was found to contain plagiarized/copied material from multiple other sources, undermining his claimed authorship and exceptional ability.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“it appears that the Petitioner falsely claimed the work of other individuals as his own”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence”
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 does not turn on the standard NIW prongs at all; instead, the AAO found that the Petitioner committed fraud/willful misrepresentation by submitting a plagiarized book as evidence of authorship and exceptional ability. The AAO conducted an extensive forensic comparison of the submitted book against multiple other published sources (websites, auction listings, another book) to demonstrate the plagiarism, and used this finding not only to deny exceptional-ability classification but to find the Petitioner inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for fraud/willful misrepresentation. The Petitioner's attorney withdrew from representation in response to the NOID, stating she was unaware the documents were fraudulent. Because threshold eligibility failed on fraud grounds, the AAO explicitly declined to reach the national interest waiver analysis (Dhanasar prongs) at all, though Dhanasar's 'well positioned' language was cited in the course of identifying the fraudulent evidence.
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(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- Section 291 of the Act
- Visinscaia v. Beers
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral