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 initially proposed managing and expanding a commercial and residential cleaning business in Florida, then later changed his proposed endeavor to developing a retail supermarket specializing in American, Brazilian, and Spanish products.
Field: entrepreneurship (commercial/residential cleaning services; later retail supermarket) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner claimed to meet four of six exceptional-ability criteria but was found, on de novo review, to satisfy only one (academic degree). His entrepreneurial experience since 2016 did not establish ten years of full-time experience in the occupation, and his Brazilian professional registration as an industrial-production technologist did not establish a license/certification as an entrepreneur. Even assuming three criteria were met, the record did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered among entrepreneurs.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“was not adequate to show that he had "at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation being sought"”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“did not establish... that he held a license or certification in the occupation of an entrepreneur”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“does not submit any additional evidence or information relevant to his claim of exceptional ability as an entrepreneur”
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
The threshold EB-2 exceptional-ability determination was dispositive of the prior appeal, so NIW prongs (Dhanasar) were never reached and remained expressly reserved. The AAO separately flagged, but did not formally rule on, an impermissible material change in the proposed endeavor (from a cleaning business to a retail supermarket) under Matter of Izummi. On motion, the Petitioner submitted no new evidence and merely reasserted general disagreement with the prior decision without identifying specific legal or factual errors, leading to dismissal of both the motion to reopen and to reconsider.
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
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