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 musician and former pilot, sought to develop and market a music education tool combining music theory with aviation calculation concepts to assist student learning.
Field: music (musician / music education tool development) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner initially claimed advanced-degree professional status but submitted no degree evidence; on appeal abandoned that claim and the AAO evaluated only exceptional ability, finding fewer than three of six regulatory criteria satisfied (license/certification, professional membership, and recognition for achievements/contributions all found insufficient).
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“the document itself is identified as an "identity card," and there is little indication on its face that it could be deemed a license or certification”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letter does not indicate that the Petitioner's proposed music education tool could be categorized as an achievement or significant contribution”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“The Petitioner did not submit any evidence reflecting that he had earned a bachelor's, or other, degree.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's participation in these lectures and workshops reflect his promotion of his proposed music education tool, and do not reflect any achievements”
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
AAO found the petitioner failed at the threshold EB-2 stage (neither advanced degree professional nor exceptional ability), and therefore held the NIW/Dhanasar analysis moot and declined to reach it entirely — no prong analysis occurred. Petitioner had also claimed to be an inventor/entrepreneur and former pilot, but the AAO found it unclear what profession his endeavor even fell under.
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)(iii)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to establish the underlying EB-2 classification (exceptional ability or advanced degree professional), rendering the NIW analysis moot before Dhanasar was reached.
Secure underlying EB-2 eligibility first with concrete licensure/membership/recognition evidence; NIW merits are irrelevant if base classification is unproven.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a musician and music educator, proposed to advance music education in the United States by opening a pia
- The petitioner, a tattoo artist, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability along with a nationa
- The Petitioner, an MMA athlete and trainer, proposed to operate a jiu jitsu company through which he would train and com
- The Petitioner sought to establish an arts education academy in Ohio, with plans to expand to New York and Michigan, off
- The Petitioner, an art curator, proposed to establish a nonprofit cultural center/platform focused on exhibitions, oral