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 former Brazilian police officer and security analyst, sought to establish and serve as chief executive of his own private security guard company in the United States.
Field: private security services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO agreed with the Director that the final merits determination did not establish a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered, and separately found the Petitioner's decades of law-enforcement experience did not qualify as ten years' experience 'in the occupation' he intends to pursue (CEO of a private security firm), undermining the criterion the Director had granted.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the evidence does not establish that the petitioner possesses training which was above that ordinarily encountered in the field.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner had not shown that the evidence 'set[s] the petitioner apart from others in his field.'”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“memberships do not reflect that [the Petitioner] participated based on his expertise, but were likely a normal function of being a professional in his country.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“were not accompanied by any corroborative evidence [showing] the impact of the petitioner's work in the field.”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“do not explain how the Petitioner's contributions were significant not only to his employer, but more broadly to 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
AAO resolved the appeal entirely on the threshold exceptional-ability classification (final merits determination), and expressly declined to reach the national interest waiver prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary alternative issues. AAO also raised sua sponte that the Director erred in crediting the 'ten years' experience' criterion because the Petitioner's decades of police/analyst experience were not 'in the occupation' (CEO of a private security firm) he intends to pursue.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- 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