dismissedSEP202023_04B52032023-09-20 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 chief executive in the transportation industry, sought to continue working in an executive capacity in that field in the United States.

Field: transportation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner met at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), but the final merits determination found the record did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field, so the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification was not established.

How the evidence was treated

certification membership · discounted
“meeting the minimum requirements by providing at least three types of initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the individual meets the requirements”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner reemphasizes his career successes, skills, and professional relationships on appeal ... does not address the Director's final merits determination”
AAO decision text
business plan · discounted
“did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor ... has national importance”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor ... has national importance”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor ... has national importance”
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

AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano, then found the exceptional-ability threshold determination dispositive and expressly declined to reach the Petitioner's Dhanasar/NIW arguments, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for not making unnecessary findings. The Petitioner's generic due-process/standard-of-proof arguments were rejected as unsupported 'passing references.'

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)
Chen v. INS
Matter of L-A-C-
Poursina v. USCIS
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer