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 retired military officer sought to direct his own company providing sales consulting services to Brazilian military and law enforcement clients, facilitating export of U.S.-made guns, ammunition, and related equipment.
Field: military/defense sales consulting (guns, ammunition, equipment export) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner's foreign titulo de bacharel was a three-and-a-half year degree program, not equivalent to a U.S. four-year bachelor's degree; both submitted credential evaluations failed to adequately explain equivalence, and EDGE database indicated the credential was comparable only to three years of U.S. university study.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the three-year Titulo de Bacharel represents attainment of a level of education comparable to 3 years of university study”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“does not explain how the evaluator found the Petitioner's three and a half years of study to equate to the four years of study required”
AAO decision text - resume experience · credited
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 reserved (declined to reach) all three Dhanasar prongs because the Petitioner failed at the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree eligibility stage, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues. The case turned entirely on a credential-equivalency dispute (3.5-year Brazilian titulo de bacharel vs. 4-year U.S. bachelor's degree), with AAO scrutinizing two competing foreign credential evaluations and the AACRAO EDGE database.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of D-R-
- 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