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 finance executive and entrepreneur, proposed to establish a fintech company in the United States, building on his experience as a CEO/CFO of businesses in Brazil.
Field: finance / fintech · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish he met at least three of the six exceptional-ability regulatory criteria (10 years' experience, license/certification, salary, membership, achievements), and even in the aggregate the evidence did not show expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. This failure was dispositive; the AAO declined to reach the NIW/Dhanasar analysis.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“It is unlikely that the partner (who is the author of the letter) would misspell not only the Petitioner's name, but also his own.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the record does not include evidence such as the membership requirements, to demonstrate that [organizations] are professional associations”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner's purported monthly income...has not been substantiated with independent and objective evidence, such as invoices, payroll records, bank statements, and/or tax returns”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not include specific details explaining how performing his job duties qualifies as recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
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 disagreed with the service center's finding that three exceptional-ability criteria were met, independently reversing that determination while still affirming denial. Because the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification was not established, the AAO expressly declined to reach the Dhanasar NIW prongs, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-. Adverse credibility concerns (misspelled names in a support letter) were central to rejecting the 10-years'-experience criterion.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
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