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.
Petitioner initially indicated she sought corporate accounting employment, but later claimed she intended to establish and operate a photography business in Florida selling framed photographs to restaurant customers.
Field: accounting / photography · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner presented inconsistent evidence about her intended occupation (accounting vs. photography entrepreneurship), constituting an impermissible post-filing material change, and failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (met only the academic record criterion; licensure and recognition criteria deemed waived for lack of specificity on appeal).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“she did not provide an attachment that explains what her prospective employment as an entrepreneur will specifically entail”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“Since the Petitioner did not address this issue with specificity on appeal, we deem the issue waived”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“Since the Petitioner did not address this issue with specificity on appeal, we deem the issue waived”
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 found the Petitioner made a material, impermissible post-filing change to her claimed occupation (from corporate accountant to photography entrepreneur), which alone undermined her exceptional-ability claim; it also invoked issue-waiver doctrine to reject two of the three claimed regulatory criteria because the Petitioner failed to specify supporting evidence on appeal. Because threshold EB-2 eligibility failed, the AAO expressly declined to reach the NIW prongs under Dhanasar, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of M-F-O- for the principle that adjudicators need not resolve 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 Katigbak
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