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 proposed to establish and run an alcoholic beverage trade and wholesale company as CEO, partnering with U.S. distilleries to export liquor and wine internationally, later opening and franchising bar restaurants.
Field: alcoholic beverage trade and wholesale · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found she qualified as an advanced degree professional; AAO reserved this issue as it was not dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence does not demonstrate that the proposed endeavor has national importance”
“her reliance upon projections potentially materializing almost a decade after beginning her endeavor are too tenuous and speculative to support her claims”
“the Petitioner has not explained her revenue data's significance or how that data shows that any potential benefits to the regional or national economy”
“the articles and reports do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor or how it, in particular, would have a broader, nationally significant impact”
“The professor's letter focuses on the importance of the wholesale and export industries, as well as the economic importance of trade”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“even if we assumed all the metrics and projections in the business plan were accurate, the Petitioner still would not have established”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the professor does not explain how this specific endeavor, as opposed to exporters, wholesalers, and business owners generally, would create such broader impact”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles and reports do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor or how it, in particular, would have a broader, nationally significant impact”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO reserved the underlying EB-2 classification and prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given prong 1 dispositive finding; included detailed footnote explaining why HUBZone program qualifications were not met and why 9-year franchise projections were too speculative.
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
- INA 203(b)(2)
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