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, who worked as an executive manager in Brazil, intended to establish a marketing and graphic design company in the United States.
Field: marketing and graphic design / business administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The credential evaluation improperly combined the Petitioner's high school education with work experience to claim bachelor's-degree equivalency, which does not satisfy the regulatory requirement of a single foreign equivalent degree; separately, the Petitioner met only one of six exceptional-ability criteria and did not contest this on appeal, so that basis was deemed waived.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“that conclusion will not be given consideration”
AAO decision text - resume experience · ignored
“the Petitioner provides no evidence or arguments addressing the concerns of the Director... we consider this issue to be waived”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not offer new arguments or evidence, but rather reasserts eligibility based on the determination made in the credentials evaluation previously submitted”
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 entirely on threshold EB-2 grounds without reaching any Dhanasar prong analysis, expressly reserving those arguments as unnecessary (citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-). The credential evaluator's non-regulatory 'three-for-one' rule (converting years of work experience into educational equivalency) was rejected as unsupported by any statute or regulation.
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. 103.3
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- 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