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 decision does not describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in the United States, as the appeal was resolved on threshold advanced-degree eligibility before the AAO reached the national interest waiver analysis.
Field: business administration / general business operations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed advanced-degree equivalency via bachelor's degree plus five years progressive post-baccalaureate experience, but relied on Brazilian Digital Work Cards, tax returns, and recommendation letters lacking required specificity (dates, titles, duties, employer address) rather than compliant employer letters under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1) and (k)(3)(i)(B); AAO found this insufficient to establish progressive experience in the specialty.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“do not include specific roles and responsibilities that the Petitioner had during his employment”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“fail to provide specific dates of the writers' direct involvement with the Petitioner's work”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
Threshold advanced-degree/experience failure was dispositive; AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. Petitioner made a notable but rejected argument that Brazilian government-issued Digital Work Cards should be deemed more credible than employer letters, and invoked Matter of E-M- ('quality not quantity') to argue his ~700 pages of evidence sufficed.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod