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 software developer who also owns 40% of a Brazilian company, sought to work in the United States as a software developer/business director; the decision does not reach the substance of his proposed U.S. endeavor.
Field: software development / IT project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) (salary/remuneration evidence was inconsistent and non-comparable) and failed to establish that his associate degree plus specialization certificate is equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate/advanced degree, so he did not qualify for the underlying EB-2 classification under either theory.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner did not explain how these materials establish exceptional ability.”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established that his certificate of specialization is an academic degree rather than a certificate of occupational training.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“In the absence of reliable, consistent information comparing the Petitioner's salary and remuneration to that of others similarly situated, the Petitioner has not established that his salary and remuneration demonstrate exceptional ability.”
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 AAO explicitly declined to reach the national interest waiver prongs because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification (both exceptional ability and advanced degree), citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. Much of the decision is devoted to scrutinizing inconsistent Brazilian and U.S. salary/tax data and to rejecting a degree-equivalency evaluation that combined an associate degree with a specialization certificate to claim bachelor's-degree equivalence.
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. 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 R-A-M-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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