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 Brazilian bakery-industry entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and a national interest waiver in connection with operating their bakery-related business.
Field: bakery/food entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner failed to establish eligibility under any of the six exceptional-ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii): the bakery training certificate was not from a qualifying academic institution; no employer letters established 10 years of full-time experience; salary/remuneration evidence could not be compared to a relevant standard; the trade union membership did not qualify as a professional association; and recommendation letters and an award ('Quality Seal') did not demonstrate significant achievements or contributions reflecting expertise above that ordinarily encountered in the field. Because fewer than three criteria were met, the AAO did not reach a final merits determination or the Dhanasar national-interest-waiver analysis.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“is not a college, university, school, or other institution oflearning”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“does not sufficiently describe the duties the Petitioner performed as an entrepreneur”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“is not a professional association. It is a trade union.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these statements are not supported by any evidence in the record which reflects that these are noteworthy”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“The unsupported assertions of the Petitioner are not evidence.”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- other · discounted
“we cannot evaluate from information in the record whether the Petitioner's salary or remuneration demonstrated their 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
The AAO dismissed the appeal entirely on threshold exceptional-ability grounds, finding none of the six regulatory criteria met, and expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar national interest waiver analysis, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that unnecessary issues need not be decided. The decision heavily redacts identifying details (e.g., business names, letter writers) with blank underscores.
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. 103.3
- 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-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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