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 bank employee, sought to work in the United States as a financial analyst, claiming exceptional ability based on over a decade of banking-sector experience.
Field: financial analysis / banking · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found the Petitioner did not meet any of the six 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii) criteria for exceptional ability: the academic diploma was in a field (system analysis and development) unrelated to financial analysis; the claimed 10 years of experience was in banking/customer-service/general-manager roles not corresponding to financial analyst duties; the ANBIMA 'CPA-10' certification was not shown to be a governing license/certification for the occupation; salary evidence did not permit comparison to exceptional financial analysts; the trade union membership was not a professional association; and recommendation letters, certificates, and an award did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field.
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence or explanation as to how the Petitioner's credential ... related to a demonstration of the Petitioner's exceptional ability”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“These job duties do not correspond with the job duties of a financial analyst.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“The record does not contain an indication of the mandate or authority that ANBIMA exercises over the financial analyst occupation.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“these statements are not supported by any evidence in the record which reflects that these are noteworthy as achievements and significant contributions”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“the record does not adequately describe how the certificates are reflective of an expertise above that ordinarily encountered in the field”
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 conducted de novo review and withdrew the Director's favorable findings on four of six exceptional-ability criteria, concluding the Petitioner met none, and expressly declined to reach any Dhanasar NIW prong analysis, reserving that issue as unnecessary given the threshold EB-2 failure.
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)
- 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 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