dismissedJAN202026_04B52032026-01-20 · appeal

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 senior lead consultant specializing in information technology (including warehouse management systems), sought to work in the United States as a senior lead consultant, claiming exceptional ability based on over ten years of IT consulting experience in Brazil.

Field: information technology consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner failed to establish at least three of six exceptional ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii). SCOPS credited criterion (B) (ten years full-time experience) but denied criteria (D) (salary demonstrating exceptional ability) and (F) (recognition for achievements and significant contributions). The AAO affirmed both denials, and declined to reach criterion (A) (academic records) as it would not change the outcome. NIW prongs were not reached because the threshold EB-2 requirement was not met.

How the evidence was treated

resume experience · discounted
“the letters do not discuss the Petitioner's recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry but merely reflect a review of services he provided to clients”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the support letters provided by the Petitioner include unaddressed discrepancies. The letters also do not discuss the Petitioner's recognition for achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text
contract revenue · discounted
“the itemized list of invoices was not fully translated... we accord it no weight as we cannot determine whether it supports their claim”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the Petitioner's letters provide conflicting statements as to his stated annual salaries... the basis for these annual numbers is not explained in detail”
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 case was decided entirely at the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability stage; the NIW prongs were never reached. The AAO found the salary criterion (D) failed due to an incomplete foreign-language translation of invoice records, conflicting salary figures across multiple letters, and failure to submit independent tax or payroll documentation. The recognition criterion (F) failed because support letters had unaddressed formatting irregularities (identical formats, missing letterheads and signatures flagged in the RFE) and discussed only services rendered to clients rather than achievements or contributions to the field. The Petitioner's attempt to raise a 'comparable evidence' argument regarding his IT integration portfolio was rejected because he simultaneously asserted the standard criteria did apply to his occupation.

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)(3)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria: salary evidence was uncorroborated, contradictory, and partly untranslated, and letters showed skills/services, not recognized achievements or contributions, under (D) and (F).

Transferable lesson

Before reaching NIW merits, ensure independent, consistent, fully-translated documentation (tax/payroll records) supports each claimed exceptional-ability criterion, and that letters describe specific recognized achievements, not just job duties.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer