dismissedAUG232022_01B52032022-08-23 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 with a foreign bachelor's degree in business administration, sought EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver based on his business activities, though the decision does not specify a particular proposed endeavor.

Field: business administration / entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to qualify as an advanced degree professional because he submitted no letters from current or former employers establishing five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, relying instead on an evaluator, accountant letters, and an expert opinion letter. He also failed to qualify as an individual of exceptional ability, meeting only two of the six regulatory criteria (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (C)); the membership criterion (professional association), the ten-years-experience criterion, the salary criterion, and the recognition criterion were all found unmet, and proffered comparable evidence (a patent assignment application) was rejected for lack of explanation.

How the evidence was treated

degree · credited
resume experience · discounted
“he specifically states that he relied on the diplomas, transcripts, and resume provided by the Petitioner”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“he did not... provide any supporting evidence... which establishes that either the Federal or Regional Administration Council is a professional association”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the record does not contain objective information regarding his specific achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“Without additional documentation, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion.”
AAO decision text

All 6 evidence items

patents · discounted
“The Petitioner has not done so here.”
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 either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability), explicitly declining to reach the national interest waiver prongs: 'As the Petitioner has not met the threshold requirement for this classification, further analysis of his eligibility for a national interest waiver would serve no meaningful purpose.' The AAO also noted it was treating multiple deficiencies as independent and alternate bases for dismissal.

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)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
INA 203(b)(2)
Kazarian v. USCIS
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to establish underlying EB-2 eligibility: lacked required employer letters for advanced-degree classification and met only 2 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria, so NIW analysis was unreached.

Transferable lesson

Secure compliant employer-issued letters and satisfy at least three regulatory exceptional-ability criteria with objective evidence before any NIW argument is even considered.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer