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 in audiovisual production, sought to establish and operate a full-service audiovisual production company in Florida, serving as its owner and video producer.
Field: audiovisual production · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner abandoned the advanced degree professional argument on appeal, and failed to meet at least three of six exceptional ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) (B, C, D, and F not met).
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“did not provide necessary details about the Petitioner's duties, the length of his employment, or whether he worked full time”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“has not explained how these certificates are comparable to a license to practice his profession”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“is not comparable to a license or certification to practice his occupation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not indicate that the Petitioner's contributions go beyond being a dedicated and competent employee”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“did not submit evidence to demonstrate how his salaries as either "Entrepreneur" or as audiovisual employee were due to his exceptional ability”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- business plan · ignored
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
AAO found the threshold exceptional-ability determination dispositive and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis, reserving those arguments. Petitioner abandoned the advanced degree professional claim by not addressing it on appeal, resulting in waiver of that issue.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- 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