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 business manager from Brazil with a background in administration and event planning, sought to continue working in business management in the United States.
Field: business management/administration · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner waived advanced-degree eligibility and instead claimed exceptional ability, meeting the minimum three of six evidentiary criteria but failing the final merits determination: the record did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in business management, as her degree, license, membership, and recommendation letters showed only general qualifications and positive work performance rather than distinguishing expertise.
How the evidence was treated
- certification membership · discounted
“The record does not establish that membership in this organization requires a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not establish significant contributions to the business management industry as a whole”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the evidence of her degree demonstrates she has met the general qualifications for earning a bachelor's degree in business administration”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they do not establish how this experience, together with her education and training, has provided her with expertise significantly 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 explicitly acknowledged that SCOPS' decision contained errors, including improperly applying extraordinary-ability standards and treating salary evidence as a requirement, and withdrew two of SCOPS' criteria findings, yet still affirmed the ultimate denial on final merits grounds. Because the underlying EB-2 exceptional-ability classification was not established, the AAO expressly reserved its opinion on the national interest waiver (Dhanasar) prongs entirely, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
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. 103.5
- 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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Kazarian v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner met 3 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria but final merits determination found no evidence of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field; NIW not reached.
Establish underlying EB-2 classification (exceptional ability/advanced degree) with comparative, field-specific evidence before litigating NIW; generic praise letters and standard credentials are insufficient.
vague
person_focused
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