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, an industrial automation/software developer, intended to continue developing software for HVAC systems and refrigeration equipment in the United States.
Field: industrial automation / software development for HVAC and refrigeration systems · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility either as an advanced degree professional (no evidence his Brazilian vocational training and experience equated to a U.S. bachelor's or advanced degree, nor that his occupation requires a bachelor's degree) or as an individual of exceptional ability (met only 2 of 6 regulatory criteria after AAO adjustment).
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record...does not contain evidence to show that the program the Petitioner completed with this institution is the foreign equivalent of either a U.S. bachelor's degree or advanced degree.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The letters do not serve as evidence of a continuous timeline of full-time employment over a period of at least ten years.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · credited
- certification membership · discounted
“As this membership post-dates the filing date of his petition, we will not consider this evidence.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the record does not contain credible evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's income during those years or any other year was a result of his purported exceptional ability.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not reference any formal recognition of achievements or contributions to the HVAC industry or the field of software development.”
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 Petitioner ineligible under both potential EB-2 tracks (advanced degree and exceptional ability) at the threshold stage and explicitly declined to reach any Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs, reserving them as unnecessary to the decision, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-.
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)
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod