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 chief executive and co-owner of a Brazilian company, sought to continue working as a business executive/consultant in the United States under an EB-2 exceptional ability classification with a national interest waiver.
Field: business/finance (chief executive) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, meeting none of the six regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); the AAO withdrew the Director's favorable findings on two criteria (experience letters, memberships) and found the remaining criteria unmet as well.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the letter is unsigned and contains little verifiable information about the author”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these authors do not explain with corroborative detail how the results the Petitioner achieved for his employer impacted the field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to establish the professional nature of the organizations”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
“The Petitioner has not submitted evidence for our consideration under this criterion.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the accountant's claims regarding the Petitioner's salary are not corroborated by other evidence in the record”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- awards · discounted
“we conclude that this award does not constitute an achievement or contribution to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“these press releases do not attribute this success to the Petitioner”
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 withdrew two of the Director's favorable findings on exceptional-ability criteria (10-years experience and professional membership), reversing course to find the Petitioner met zero of six criteria rather than the two found below. Because the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability classification was not established, the AAO declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs entirely, making this a threshold-failure dispositive case with no prong analysis.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Otiende
- 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