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 sought to use his U.S.-based company to develop affordable single-family housing for low-income Americans, initially in a Florida HUB Zone and later expanding to other states, drawing on his prior construction and real estate development experience in Brazil.
Field: real estate development / construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability (8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)); AAO withdrew Director's finding that two criteria were met and found none satisfied.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the evidence does not contain sufficient specificity to determine whether he meets the plain language of this criterion”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he has not established that salary information for a general manager would be a proper comparison”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not sufficiently explain or document the Petitioner's recognition for achievements and significant contributions to his industry or field”
AAO decision text - media · 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 declined to reach the Dhanasar prongs entirely because the Petitioner failed the threshold exceptional-ability classification requirement, withdrawing two criteria the Director had found satisfied and finding none of the six regulatory criteria met; also noted undisclosed pilot occupation undermining full-time experience claims.
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)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to meet any of the six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria—experience letters lacked specificity, salary comparison was flawed, membership post-dated filing, and recognition letters were merely complimentary, so Dhanasar prongs were never reached.
Secure precise, contemporaneous, well-corroborated evidence for each exceptional-ability criterion before appeal; threshold classification failure forecloses any NIW merits analysis.
moderate
economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · us_competitiveness
person_focused
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