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 Brazilian entrepreneur, operated a business providing distance education and training events for software engineers and IT professionals, and sought to continue this work in the U.S. under an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver.
Field: distance education / information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO affirmed that Petitioner did not establish exceptional ability (failed to meet 3 of 6 criteria) and remanded the advanced-degree-professional analysis because the Director never adequately addressed the baccalaureate degree and equivalency evaluations.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“do not provide sufficient information to establish that the Petitioner has a specific amount of experience”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“are limited to discussing the Petitioner's work and expertise within the context of each letter writer's business”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“there was no documentation of the association's bylaws demonstrating that their association is professional”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the fact that the Petitioner did not submit evidence to resolve the tax document inconsistencies cast doubt on the reliability of the remaining evidence”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
“did not include an analysis of the evaluation from ... College that equated the Petitioner's education, training, and experience to a master's degree”
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
This decision concerns the threshold EB-2 classification determination (exceptional ability / advanced degree), not the Dhanasar NIW prongs; the Director never reached the NIW analysis in a legally sufficient way, so the AAO remanded before any prong analysis could occur. Notable evidentiary issue: online currency-converter cross-check used to challenge accountant-provided salary figures, revealing inconsistencies that undermined credibility of the entire record.
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. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of Katigbak
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria (unreliable salary evidence, non-professional associations, uncorroborated recognition letters); Director also failed to resolve advanced-degree eligibility, requiring remand.
Establish EB-2 threshold classification first with corroborated, verifiable documentary evidence before any Dhanasar national-interest argument can be reached.
vague
person_focused
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