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 CEO of a business consulting company in Brazil, sought to continue working as a business consultant in the United States on the basis of exceptional ability.
Field: business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Although the Petitioner met three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability, the final merits determination found she did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field of business consulting; this failure was dispositive and the AAO expressly reserved the national interest waiver issue.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“78% of CEOs...had a bachelor's degree or more, but the Petitioner has only the equivalent of 3 years of university study”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“has not shown how her expertise through her education, job experience, and/or professional accomplishments significantly differentiates her”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“this membership was not significantly above what would normally be encountered in a career as a business consultant”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“Her reference letters also indicate she was well regarded as an exemplary employee.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
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 affirmed the denial solely on the threshold exceptional-ability final merits determination and explicitly declined to reach the national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- as authority for reserving unnecessary issues. It also rejected the Petitioner's due-process argument that the RFE failed to flag a potential final-merits deficiency.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution