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 military police officer, initially proposed to work as a military instructor teaching law enforcement skills in the United States, then later described a different plan to work as a police officer, police instructor, and eventually a border patrol agent.
Field: law enforcement / military training · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional because he had only four years and five months of post-baccalaureate experience, and the letter did not show progressive experience; exceptional ability classification remanded for the Director to actually evaluate in the first instance.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“As the Petitioner has not established that he possesses a United States advanced degree or foreign equivalent degree”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“It does not specify the duties he performed or the amount of time he spent in each position, nor does it sufficiently explain how his work experience was progressive.”
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 Director erroneously found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional without properly calculating experience, and separately failed to ever evaluate the exceptional ability criteria. The AAO also held that the Petitioner's RFE response substituting a new endeavor (police officer/instructor/border patrol agent) for the original claimed endeavor (military instructor) constituted an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi, and instructed the Director on remand to evaluate only the originally proposed military-instructor endeavor, disregarding the new one.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner materially changed the proposed endeavor in RFE response (from military instructor to police/border patrol roles), and failed to establish five years' progressive experience or exceptional-ability eligibility, requiring remand.
Do not alter the proposed endeavor after filing; supplement the original endeavor with specificity, and ensure EB-2 threshold eligibility (advanced degree or exceptional ability) is fully documented before NIW analysis.
vague
national_security · public_health
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp