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 sought to operate an e-commerce business designing, manufacturing, and selling sustainable clothing and accessories, initially describing plans to assist women entrepreneurs and donate profits to women's education/empowerment.
Field: e-commerce/clothing and accessories retail · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO found insufficient evidence the foreign degree was equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate, inconsistencies in the claimed field of study, insufficient evidence of five years of progressive specialty experience, and no evidence the intended occupation requires a baccalaureate degree for entry.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not include sufficient evidence to show that the scope of her endeavor extends beyond the operation of a small business providing donations to local chapters of charitable organizations.”
“While the business plan emphasizes the growing demand for "modest fashion" among certain populations, the plan does not detail and is not otherwise supported by a method of capitalizing on that demand in a manner that would serve the national interest.”
“Further, she has not demonstrated that her specific proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for the U.S.”
“the record here does not establish that the Petitioner's role as the owner of a business manufacturing clothing would impact the industry more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“The record, however, does not contain sufficient evidence to establish a specific field of study to which the Petitioner's foreign degree equates.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the letter does not contain evidence of her duties at the company”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the opinion letter does not evaluate the Petitioner's education or provide an evaluation of her combined education and employment experience”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the plan does not detail and is not otherwise supported by a method of capitalizing on that demand in a manner that would serve the national interest”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO reversed the Director's favorable finding on the threshold advanced-degree eligibility, finding inconsistencies between the petitioner's claimed field of study (Regional Studies vs. Economics vs. Marketing) undermined credibility of submitted documents, citing Matter of Ho for adverse credibility inference.
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(g)(1)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
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