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, an entrepreneur and electrician, sought to continue working in the United States in the electrical field, claiming exceptional ability.
Field: electrical work · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner satisfied only 2 of the 6 exceptional-ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) (degree and license/certification), failing to meet the required three. Failed criteria: 10 years full-time experience (B), professional association membership (E), salary demonstrating exceptional ability (D), and recognition for achievements/contributions (F).
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has at least 10 years of full-time experience in the occupation of electrician or entrepreneur”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the documents do not include information regarding its membership requirements”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not contain evidence regarding the salary and bonuses of electricians and earnings for similar contracted projects in Brazil”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not include specific details explaining how performing his job duties qualifies as recognition for achievements”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the Petitioner does not provide any information regarding the awards, such as the awarding entity's criteria and evaluation methods”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- degree · credited
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 reversed the Director's findings on two of the exceptional-ability criteria (B and E) but still dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner failed on two other criteria (D and F) that the Director had found satisfied, leaving him short of the required three of six. Because the threshold exceptional-ability classification was not met, the AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not decide 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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria (only met (A) and (C)), so he could not establish underlying EB-2 classification, making NIW analysis unnecessary.
Secure the underlying EB-2 classification first with well-documented criteria (full-time experience proof, membership requirements, comparative salary data) before any NIW national-interest argument matters.
vague
person_focused
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