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, planned to provide business consulting services to U.S. companies while investing in a Florida-based freight trucking company and partnering with a homebuilding company in Florida.
Field: business/entrepreneurship (construction and long-distance freight trucking) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish a qualifying advanced degree because his Brazilian certificates combined credentials rather than constituting a single foreign equivalent degree, and also failed to establish exceptional ability, satisfying only one of six required criteria and not contesting the Director's finding on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his two companies to impact his field or the construction and long-distance freight trucking industries more broadly”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where the company operates is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area”
“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record does not show that benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his two companies”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO found the Petitioner failed on three independent, alternate grounds: advanced degree classification, exceptional ability classification, and Dhanasar prong 1, explicitly stating each was 'an independent and alternate basis for the decision.' The degree denial turned on a technical point that a combination of a partial bachelor's-level certificate plus a specialization certificate could not be combined into a single 'foreign equivalent degree,' despite an evaluator's opinion equating the combination to a U.S. master's degree.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- INA 291
- Poursina v. USCIS
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