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 entrepreneur with a background in business management and online learning technology, sought to continue his entrepreneurial and consulting work in the United States.
Field: business/entrepreneurship (online learning/marketing technology) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner failed both as advanced degree professional (no official academic record, only certificates from Data Kbyte and Google AdWords) and as individual of exceptional ability (met only the ten-years-experience criterion; failed academic record, salary, membership, and recognition criteria).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“These certificates, however, do not constitute a U.S. advanced degree, a U.S. baccalaureate degree, or their foreign equivalent.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“Nor has the Petitioner provided evidence demonstrating that Data Kbyte® or Google AdWords constitute "a college, university, school, or other institution of learning."”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
- other · discounted
“he has not shown that the former provides a proper analysis of his pre-2018 earnings”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The evidence presented is not sufficient to demonstrate that has a membership body comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- awards · discounted
“The aforementioned certificate and letters reflect local recognition from two Brazilian municipalities and therefore they are not sufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence does not show that his work has had an impact beyond his employers, clientele, and their specific projects”
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
AAO resolved the case entirely on threshold EB-2 eligibility (advanced degree professional and exceptional ability categories both failed) and explicitly declined to reach the NIW/Dhanasar prongs as unnecessary, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. Also notable: AAO withdrew the Director's finding on the academic-record exceptional-ability criterion but still affirmed overall denial since three criteria were not met; post-filing evidence (2022 letter) was rejected under the eligibility-at-time-of-filing rule.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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