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 human resources management specialist from Brazil, proposed to work in the United States as owner and managing director of her own HR consulting company, providing HR consulting and professional development services to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Field: human resources management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but met only two of six regulatory criteria (academic record and license/certification); AAO found she failed to establish 10 years full-time experience, salary demonstrating exceptional ability, professional-association membership, and recognition for achievements, so she did not meet at least three of six criteria required.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- certification membership · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Regional Board of Administration of the Federal District is a professional association”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the declarations do not establish that the Petitioner has at least 10 years of full-time experience in the occupation for which she is being sought”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not include specific details explaining how... qualifies as recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- media · discounted
“she has not shown that her appearance in the company magazine demonstrates recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the evidence the Petitioner submitted does not sufficiently establish that she has commanded a salary or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates 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
AAO dismissed the appeal solely on threshold exceptional-ability eligibility grounds (failure to meet at least three of six 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3) criteria), expressly declining to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for not deciding 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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
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