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 sought to work as an entrepreneur in the field of freight packing and logistics through her own business established in Florida in 2016.
Field: freight packing and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability, satisfying at most one of the six regulatory criteria (and even that one was withdrawn on appeal). She failed the degree criterion (degree unrelated to field), the ten-years experience criterion (only seven years shown, plus unresolved hours discrepancies), and the professional association membership criterion (association not shown to require a baccalaureate-level profession for entry).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not indicate that the diploma relates to the Petitioner's area of exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The record does not include evidence explaining how the evidence submitted shows ten years of full-time experience.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record lacks evidence showing [the association's] members must be in a profession as defined by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2)”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reasserts that she satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), (E), and (F)”
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 case turns entirely on failure to establish the threshold EB-2 'exceptional ability' classification (three of six regulatory criteria), not on the Dhanasar NIW prongs; the AAO expressly reserved opinion on all three Dhanasar prongs since the underlying classification failure was dispositive. Credibility concerns arose from discrepancies between employer letters (40 hrs/week) and the Petitioner's ETA-750 Part B (20 hrs/week), and from claims of simultaneous full-time employment at two jobs, both resolved against the Petitioner under Matter of Ho.
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. 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)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of Ho
- 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 criteria (degree unrelated to claimed field, unresolved work-hour inconsistencies undermining 10-year experience claim, and unproven professional-association status), so AAO never reached the Dhanasar NIW analysis.
Secure and document underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability eligibility with consistent, corroborated evidence before litigating national-interest-waiver merits; unresolved discrepancies in work hours/experience are fatal at the threshold.
vague
person_focused
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