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, an accounting professional and business owner in Brazil, sought to work in the United States in accounting/entrepreneurship, though the specific proposed endeavor was not substantively analyzed because the AAO reserved the national interest waiver issue.
Field: accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but the AAO found he met only the official academic record criterion (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)); he failed to establish the 10-years-experience criterion because the submitted letter was from his accountant rather than a current or former employer and lacked details on duties, dates, or full-time status, and failed the salary criterion because he compared his salary to average Brazilian salaries rather than to others in the field performing comparable duties. Other criteria (license, membership, recognized contributions) were waived as not raised on appeal.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The letter from his foreign accountant is not sufficient evidence of employment from current or former employers because the accountant was not the Petitioner's current or former employer.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner did not provide a basis to compare his salary to those of others similarly employed.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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 threshold exceptional-ability classification unmet and, because this was dispositive, explicitly declined to reach or reserved all Dhanasar national interest waiver arguments, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues.
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)
- 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