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 Brazilian CEO/entrepreneur in the event-planning industry, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver to continue her event-management business in the United States.
Field: event planning/management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. Her claimed memberships in ABRAFESTA, Brazilian Woman Association, and IFEA were not shown to be professional associations under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2), and even the criteria arguably met did not establish exceptional ability. The Director's and AAO's finding on this threshold issue was dispositive, so the Dhanasar prongs were not reached.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“membership in ABRAFESTA was a qualification possessed by most members in her field”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“does not provide sufficient evidence or arguments addressing the concerns of the Director”
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 Petitioner's appellate brief repeatedly referred to her with male pronouns, which the AAO flagged with '(sic)' throughout its recitation of her arguments. The AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on one exceptional-ability criterion (professional association membership) after independently reviewing the evidence, ultimately concluding the Petitioner met none of the six criteria and never reached the Dhanasar prongs.
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-
- 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