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 owner of his own software company in Brazil, sought to continue his work in the U.S. software development field, claiming exceptional ability.
Field: software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) because the new salary-survey evidence postdated the 2019 filing and improperly compared his owner-inclusive compensation to a generic software developer benchmark. He also failed to show he holds a single degree equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate, as required by 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2), since his credential evaluation combined a three-year technologist degree with a separate graduate certificate rather than reflecting one equivalent degree.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that he holds any degree that is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not establish that, at the time the underlying petition was filed in 2019, the Petitioner commanded a salary...indicative of his claimed exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence of new facts to establish his eligibility”
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
This decision never reaches the NIW/Dhanasar prongs; it is confined entirely to threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability and degree-equivalency issues raised in a second combined motion following two prior dismissals on identical grounds.
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. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Katigbak
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to submit timely, admissible new evidence: 2022 wage survey postdated filing and mismatched his owner-role salary, and degree evaluation showed no single qualifying baccalaureate-equivalent degree.
On motions, submit evidence dated at time of filing and ensure foreign credential evaluations show a single degree equivalency, not combined partial credentials.
vague
person_focused
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