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.
A Brazilian law enforcement and intelligence officer with approximately 25 years of service sought to continue work as a crime and intelligence specialist in the United States, citing benefits to U.S. national security and law enforcement training.
Field: crime and intelligence / law enforcement · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Although the Director found four of six exceptional-ability criteria satisfied, the AAO concluded on final merits determination that the Petitioner did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his field.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner did not sufficiently indicate how he has obtained a level of expertise significantly above others”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how this training sets him apart from other crime and intelligence specialists”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“it is not clear how they demonstrate significant expertise beyond others working in law enforcement and intelligence”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters do not clearly indicate how his expertise is significantly developed beyond his colleagues in the field”
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 dismissed the appeal solely on the threshold exceptional-ability finding and expressly reserved the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver analysis, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues.
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)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp