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 manage his own U.S.-based financial advisory company, leveraging his existing Brazilian client base to help Brazilian investors and companies invest in the United States.
Field: financial markets / wealth and asset management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO withdrew the Director's final merits determination and found the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability based on his founding/leadership of a financial advisory firm, industry recognition, and regulatory/legislative contributions in Brazil.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Here, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his clientele to impact the financial services industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“the Petitioner did not provide documentation or information regarding these investments to show that they do in fact make an impact in the financial markets.”
“However, the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections.”
“Even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were more than conjecture, they do not establish that the endeavor would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide documentation or information regarding these investments to show that they do in fact make an impact in the financial markets”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- certification membership · credited
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO reversed the Director's exceptional-ability finding (withdrawing that portion of the decision) yet still dismissed the appeal solely on Dhanasar prong 1, declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 under INS v. Bagamasbad.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- 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