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 former Brazilian Army noncommissioned officer and correctional officer, proposed to work in the United States as a security services consultant and trainer, drawing on his military, law enforcement, and security experience.
Field: security services / law enforcement / military · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed EB-2 eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability but failed to satisfy at least three of the six regulatory evidentiary criteria; specifically the AAO found he did not meet the license/certification criterion (his Brazilian Army ID card did not qualify) or the professional-association-membership criterion (Brazilian Army membership did not qualify as a professional association).
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“he did not establish that the document he submitted is a license or certification for the practice of a particular professional or occupation”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish that his membership with the Brazilian Army is tantamount to his membership in a professional association”
AAO decision text - resume experience · 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
The AAO dismissed the appeal solely on threshold exceptional-ability grounds (failure to meet 3 of 6 regulatory criteria), explicitly declining to reach a final merits determination on exceptional ability or any analysis under the Dhanasar national interest waiver framework, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that agencies need not resolve unnecessary issues.
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.
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution