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 tourism entrepreneur with a background in travel agency and real estate work, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver, though the specifics of his proposed endeavor were not reached.
Field: tourism · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner met only two of the six exceptional-ability criteria (degree and license); he failed to establish membership in a qualifying professional association or recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field, and thus did not meet the required three of six criteria.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“does not indicate that a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is a minimum requirement for entry into the professions”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not indicate that the Petitioner has received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to his field”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“did not submit evidence that he received any of these awards”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“did not submit evidence of recognition for any achievements or significant contributions to the tourism industry”
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 found the exceptional-ability threshold dispositive and expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. One support letter invoked the Dhanasar NIW framework, but the AAO did not apply or analyze it since the threshold issue resolved the appeal.
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)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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