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 a consulting and advisory company assisting small and medium-sized entrepreneurs with binational business between Brazil and the United States, including advising on company transfers, legal advice, and online training for immigrants.
Field: international entrepreneurship consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the record supports, that the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“she has not persuasively shown how her company will have a broader impact in the industry or nation beyond the individual employees and clients she will serve”
“The Petitioner, however, has presented little supporting evidence corroborating these assertions and figures”
“aside from these vague assertions, she has provided little detail discussing how her work will specifically accomplish such objectives”
“these broad, conclusory statements rely on more generalizations about the results of typical business activity”
“General conclusory statements without a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between the proposed endeavor and the claimed impacts are insufficient”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“even if these projections were more than conjecture, we would still conclude the Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters provide little probative evidence of the endeavor's national importance under Dhanasar's first prong”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text - certification membership · ignored
“we will not consider it for the first time on appeal”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO declined to consider new evidence submitted with the appeal brief (additional support letter, ServSafe certification, certificate of appreciation) under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(11) and Matter of Soriano, since Petitioner had prior notice and opportunity to submit it.
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
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