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.
A former Brazilian military officer initially proposed working as a military instructor in the U.S., then shifted to describing a plan to provide sales consultancy services to U.S. companies selling weapons and goods to the Brazilian military.
Field: military administration / proposed sales consultancy for defense/maritime industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed to establish his Brazilian bachelor's degree was the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree (degree required four years in the U.S. but his program was three and a half years), so he did not qualify as an advanced degree professional. He also failed to meet three of the six exceptional-ability evidentiary categories: his experience letters showed administrative/HR military roles rather than 10 years of progressive experience as a military instructor, entrepreneur, or sales consultant (the shifting endeavors he claimed), he submitted no licenses/certifications, and his military medals reflected general service rather than recognition for achievements in the fields of his proposed endeavors.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that he holds the equivalent of a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university in the United States”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the record does not show that the Petitioner has 10 years of full-time experience as a military instructor, an entrepreneur or a sales consultant”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“he did not respond to the RFE with additional evidence or arguments about meeting either of these categories”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the evidence of military medals received by the Petitioner are acknowledgment of his service as a military officer and do not reflect recognition for achievements”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“Leaving aside the issue of this significant change in his proposed endeavor”
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 Petitioner ineligible for the underlying EB-2 classification under both the advanced-degree and exceptional-ability categories and expressly reserved (declined to reach) the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad. The decision also highlights significant inconsistency in the Petitioner's described endeavor (military instructor vs. sales consultant to U.S. arms/shipbuilding companies).
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp