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 operate her own human resources consulting company in Florida, providing recruiting, hiring, training, and HR support services to small and medium-sized businesses.
Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”
“The Petitioner's claimed extensive experiences as a human resources specialist are material to Dhanasar 's second prong”
“she has not demonstrated that her undertaking has implications beyond her company's customers to enhance societal welfare on a broader scale”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“The Petitioner has not however presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economies resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner has not however presented evidence indicating that the benefits to the regional or national economies resulting from her undertaking would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“material to Dhanasar 's second prong-whether an individual is well positioned to advance a proposed endeavor-but they are immaterial to the first Dhanasar prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The record nonetheless does not establish how the proposed endeavor will have broader implications beyond benefitting the Petitioner's customers”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- experience not progressive or unrelated · p1 — claimed equivalency experience is not progressive, or sits outside the field
- 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
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 L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the specific endeavor's prospective impact—beyond her own clients/company—rose to a national scale of economic or societal benefit under prong one.
Support projected job creation/revenue with corroborated evidence tying scale explicitly to regional or national economic impact, not just company growth figures.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution