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 national, sought to open and operate automotive repair shops in three U.S. cities across three states, projecting 33 employees and $2.3 million in revenue by year five.
Field: automotive repair / production engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not qualify as an advanced degree professional (bachelor's degree obtained within 5 years of filing, no progressive experience) nor as an individual of exceptional ability (failed to meet 3 of 6 regulatory criteria and failed the final merits determination); this was dispositive of the appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the plan does not explain how these forecasts were calculated, or adequately clarify how these projections will be realized”
“the record lacks evidence demonstrating that its impact would be nationally important”
“the Petitioner has therefore not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that his degree in production engineering relates to his claimed area of exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has only accounted for his work experience from 2015 onward and did not have ten years of working experience”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner has not clearly articulated how the letters from fellow employees at his former place of work reflect his significant contributions to the field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- business plan · discounted
“the lack of supporting details detracts from the probative value of the business plan”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Notable
AAO withdrew several of the Director's favorable regulatory-criteria findings (academic record criterion) and conducted its own de novo exceptional-ability and Kazarian-style final merits analysis, ultimately finding the Petitioner met only 2 of 6 criteria (license/certification and membership) rather than the Director's 3. AAO also gratuitously analyzed and rejected prong 1 of Dhanasar 'though not necessary for our final determination,' expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 since the threshold EB-2 classification failure was dispositive.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- Visinscaia v. Beers
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