dismissedAPR182024_03B52032024-04-18 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 establish and direct a New Jersey-based company manufacturing and distributing functional beverages containing vitamins, caffeine, and other supplements marketed toward reducing obesity and improving health nationwide.

Field: beverage manufacturing and distribution · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's rationale but independently found the record insufficient to establish the foreign diploma's equivalency to a U.S. bachelor's degree and insufficient evidence of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience; however, because Petitioner was not on notice, this did not form the basis of dismissal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Petitioner's generalized projections are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”

“Although the Petitioner states that his company will develop and manufacture its own beverage, the business plan does not provide sufficient information about this key aspect ofthe proposed endeavor.”

“Much ofthe Petitioner's evidence relates to the beverage industry generally, rather than his specific proposed endeavor.”

“This statement does not describe his proposed endeavor and, as the Director noted in the RFE, was not sufficient to demonstrate that his proposed endeavor has national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner's generalized projections are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters describe the Petitioner's achievements as having benefitted his employers or being key to the company, rather than describing achievements that had broad implications”
AAO decision text
media · discounted
“the article does not discuss the beverage industry or the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“Given the academic evaluation's inconsistent information regarding the title and equivalency of the academic record, the evaluation is of minimal probative value.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“we are precluded from determining that the Petitioner possesses five years of foll-time post-baccalaureate experience”
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
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

AAO withdrew part of the Director's threshold EB-2 reasoning (incorrect legal standard) but identified independent, unaddressed deficiencies in the degree equivalency and experience evidence; because Petitioner lacked notice, these did not form the basis of dismissal, but AAO instructed him to address them in future filings. AAO also included a footnote stating that even if it reached prongs two and three, it would still have dismissed the appeal, given the Petitioner's reliance on previously rejected evidence.

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 Katigbak
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of V-K-
USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer