All objections
Step 0 · EB-2 eligibility
Exceptional ability not established
Fewer than three regulatory criteria were met, or the final merits review found no expertise significantly above the ordinary.
What this objection usually means
Exceptional ability requires at least three of six types of evidence, and then a finding that the person's expertise is significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
What has tended to answer it
Evidence that clearly maps to each criterion, plus comparative evidence showing how the petitioner stands above peers.
General patterns drawn from past decisions, not legal advice for your case. Ask a licensed immigration attorney how this applies to you.
The rule
“Meeting the minimum requirement by providing at least three types of initial evidence does not, in itself, establish that the beneficiary in fact meets the requirements for exceptional ability classification.”
Quoted from the USCIS Policy Manual current as of Sept 23, 2026. Check the online manual before filing.
Free account
See what your own profile records against this objection
Assess compares your case profile with the kinds of evidence that have answered “Exceptional ability not established” and the other catalogued objections in past decisions. It shows evidence coverage, not a prediction.
See it on a sample caseHow often it is raised, by year
442 of 4,535 decisions in scope (years with 5+ decisions)
By field
Decisions raising it
- Business & finance18811% of field
- Computing, AI & data449% of field
- Aviation & transport4122% of field
- Arts, media & sports3124% of field
- Education3012% of field
- Engineering285% of field
- Clinical & health286% of field
- Other / unclear2210% of field
Where it sank the appeal
Recent dismissed appeals raising this objection
- Dismissed2026-08-17Business & finance
Upon our de novo review, we disagree with users' determination that the Petitioner met at least three of the six criteria and, therefore, we conclude he does not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability.4 2 See Flores v.
Read decision AUG172026_02B5203 - Dismissed2026-07-23Business & finance
But SCOPS determined that the Petitioner did not meet at least three of these criteria, as he did not meet the remaining two criteria he claimed relating to his command of a salary or other remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability and his recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.
Read decision JUL232026_01B5203 - Dismissed2026-07-16Computing, AI & data
For the reasons set forth above, the Petitioner has not shown that he meets at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and has achieved the level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification. 7 B.
Read decision JUL162026_02B5203 - Dismissed2026-07-08Arts, media & sports
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability but did not identify which of the six criteria the Petitioner met.
Read decision JUL082026_03B5203 - Dismissed2026-06-08Business & finance
For the reasons set forth above, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and achieved the level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification.
Read decision JUN082026_01B5203 - Dismissed2026-05-28Business & finance
Without analysis, users determined the Beneficiary established three of the initially claimed criteria relating to ten years of full-time experience, salary, and membership in professional associations. users then proceeded to do a final merits determination and found insufficient evidence of establishing the Beneficiary to be an individual of exceptional ability.
Read decision MAY282026_02B5203
Where the petitioner still won or got a remand
Sustained or remanded decisions where this issue was discussed: read them to see what answered it
- Remanded2026-06-30Business & finance
SCOPS should determine whether the Petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria related to exceptional ability and, if necessary, folly explain how the evidence in the record does or does not establish each criterion.
Read decision JUN302026_01B5203 - Remanded2025-11-06Computing, AI & data
Even if SCOPS determines that the Petitioner has satisfied three out of the six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3), meeting the minimum requirements by providing initial evidence does not, in itself: establish that the individual in fact meets the requirements for exceptional ability.
Read decision NOV062025_01B5203 - Remanded2025-06-26Computing, AI & data
But SCOPS then stated that the Petitioner "has not met at least three ofthe six criteria," and therefore "USCIS will not conduct a final merits determination" regarding the exceptional ability claim.
Read decision JUN262025_07B5203 - Remanded2025-03-19Computing, AI & data
In sum, the Director should consider whether the evidence in the record establishes the Petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria related to exceptional ability and, if necessary, fully explain how the evidence in the record does or does not establish each criterion.
Read decision MAR192025_03B5203 - Remanded2024-09-23Computing, AI & data
Eligibility for EB-2 Classification Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he qualifies as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, he must meet at least three of the regulatory criteria for classification as an individual of exceptional ability.
Read decision SEP232024_03B5203 - Remanded2024-08-05Business & finance
Nevertheless, the Director's decision did not address whether the Petitioner satisfies at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) and has achieved the level of expertise required for exceptional ability classification.
Read decision AUG052024_02B5203