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 software developer and partner/owner of two Brazilian companies, proposed to develop customized software for various industries wherever a need arose.
Field: software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as either an individual of exceptional ability (meeting only 1 of the required 3 regulatory criteria) or as an advanced degree professional (failing to show a master's degree or five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience). Because the underlying EB-2 classification was not established, the AAO found the national interest waiver issue moot and did not reach the Dhanasar prongs.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not indicate that the Petitioner's experience as a software developer was "full-time."”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“these two certificates ... are insufficient to demonstrate five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters are testimonials from clients ... and not letters from the employers themselves”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the submitted documents were not representative of the median salary of the occupation of software developer”
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 dismissed the appeal solely on threshold EB-2 grounds (failure to qualify as an advanced degree professional or individual of exceptional ability), finding the national interest waiver issue moot and never reaching the Dhanasar prongs. The decision also discusses foreign credential equivalency standards (citing AACRAO EDGE) and requirements for certified translations of foreign-language documents.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 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