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 serve as chief executive officer of her own agricultural advisory service business in Illinois, drawing on her prior experience as a soybean producer and agricultural investor in Brazil.
Field: agricultural advisory services / agriculture · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii): the AAO withdrew the Director's finding on the academic-record criterion (A) for lack of proof the certificates came from an accredited institution, and found insufficient evidence of ten years' full-time experience (B), commanded salary demonstrating exceptional ability (D), membership in a professional association (E), or recognition for significant achievements/contributions (F). Because fewer than three criteria were met, the AAO did not reach a final merits determination on exceptional ability.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently establish that any of the certificates were issued from a 'college, university, school, or other institution of learning'”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not indicate whether the Petitioner has worked full-time”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not demonstrate that she has been recognized for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The record does not show that any of these entities requires that its membership body be comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“such documents do not show the Petitioner's salary or renumeration for her services which demonstrates her exceptional ability”
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 expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar three-prong analysis, invoking INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- to reserve opinion on prongs the Petitioner argued she met, because the threshold exceptional-ability classification was not established. Much of the case turned on the Petitioner repeatedly referencing evidence (e.g., under 'TAB 6.2' through 'TAB 6.5') that the Director and AAO both confirmed was never actually submitted with her RFE reply or appeal.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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