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 CEO in the manufacturing and agricultural-machinery sectors, proposed to supply tractor parts sourced from Turkey to meet U.S. agricultural industry standards.
Field: manufacturing and agricultural-machinery · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six exceptional-ability criteria (experience letters, professional membership, and recognition for achievements were all found insufficient), rendering him ineligible for the underlying EB-2 classification; AAO therefore did not reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the CPA does not appear to be either a current or former employer of the Petitioner, and he does not make that claim”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that ... are professional associations such that his membership in them would be sufficient to meet this criterion”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“these awards and plaques were not bestowed in recognition for achievements or significant contributions to the industry or field from peers, governmental entities or professional or business associations”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters of recommendation attest to the Petitioner's competence, valuable skillset, expertise and work contributions”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner did not persuasively explain why the standards do not readily apply to his occupation”
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 resolved the appeal entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability eligibility criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and explicitly declined to reach the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad 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(g)(1)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- 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