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 nurse technician, aesthetic specialist, and wellness spa entrepreneur, sought to continue working in the U.S. in aesthetics/wellness services as an individual of exceptional ability.
Field: nursing technician / aesthetics / wellness spa services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but failed to meet at least three of the six regulatory criteria: employer letters did not establish ten years of full-time experience, professional association membership was not shown to be professional in nature, recommendation letters and media were conclusory and did not show significant contributions, and no evidence of commanded salary was submitted. The academic-record criterion was found satisfied on de novo review, but this alone was insufficient.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“do not show that she has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which she is being sought”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the evidence does not show that the Beauty Council and the Union are professional in nature”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“generally praising the Petitioner's professional skills, knowledge, and background... do not evidence that she has received recognition for achievements”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these reports do not discuss whether or how she made significant contributions to the industry or field”
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 found the Petitioner failed the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability classification (only meeting the academic-record criterion after withdrawing the Director's contrary finding, but still short of the required three of six criteria) and therefore expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs, reserving those arguments under INS v. Bagamasbad.
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(g)(1)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six regulatory criteria for exceptional-ability classification (deficient work-experience letters, no salary evidence, non-professional memberships, insufficient recognition), so NIW prongs were never reached.
Before litigating Dhanasar prongs, ensure underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability criteria are rigorously documented—especially full-time work history, salary, and objective peer/industry recognition.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp