dismissedMAY222025_04B52032025-05-22 · appeal

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 maintain and expand her business consulting and financial advisory firm, which assists foreign investors and small-to-medium-sized businesses, particularly those owned by Brazilians and other foreign nationals, offering services such as business planning, feasibility studies, HR management, asset management, and cost control.

Field: business consulting and financial advisory services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner claimed exceptional ability classification but failed to meet at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); AAO concurred with SCOPS that she failed the license/certification, ten-years-experience letters, salary, and professional membership criteria.

How the evidence was treated

certification membership · discounted
“The record does not establish the Petitioner submitted any licenses or certification that are required to perform the duties the Petitioner intends to undertake”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“these letters did not all fully comply with the regulations and, overall, were insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner possessed a minimum of ten years of full-time experience”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the record lacks detail and context to determine whether the Petitioner has earned a salary or remuneration that 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 found the threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability classification not established (failing 4 of 6 criteria: license/certification, ten-years experience letters, salary, and professional membership), rendering this dispositive; it expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the proposition that unnecessary issues need not be decided. The decision also rejected the Petitioner's due-process argument that SCOPS was inconsistent between its RFE (which only addressed NIW eligibility) and its denial (which also addressed exceptional ability), noting an RFE contains no adjudicative findings.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8)
8 C.F.R. 103.3
8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer