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 establish and operate an IT security consulting services company targeting small and medium-sized companies in the United States.
Field: IT security / industrial electronics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Although Petitioner met at least three of six exceptional-ability criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii), the final merits determination found his credentials, certifications, and licensure typical for the field and unsupported by evidence of a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered; recommendation letters lacked corroborating evidence of impact.
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“these letters were not accompanied by corroborative evidence showing the impact of the Petitioner's work in the field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“these types of qualifications are part of the normal course of employment and professional development in the IT industry”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“he reiterates on appeal that he is an accomplished CEO of three companies in Brazil with many years of experience”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
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
Because the Petitioner failed to establish the underlying exceptional-ability EB-2 classification, the AAO declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis at all, reserving those arguments as unnecessary to the disposition, even though the Director had found prongs 1 (substantial merit) and 2 (well positioned) met but prong 1 (national importance) and prong 3 not met.
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)
- Chen v. INS
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
- 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