dismissedAPR192021_05B52032021-04-19 · 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, an entrepreneur, planned to lead the U.S. operations of his Brazilian company, providing business development, consulting, and advisory services to U.S. companies and individuals, and to develop the U.S. market for a specific product.

Field: entrepreneurship/business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner's initial evidence (work booklet, not employer letters) failed to show 5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to an advanced degree; the Master's degree obtained was after filing and thus could not establish eligibility as of the filing date.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company, clientele, and partnerships to impact his field or the U.S. industry more broadly”

“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”

“Without sufficient information or evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

degree · discounted
“Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“The information in the aforementioned booklet is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience”
AAO decision text
other · credited
contract revenue · discounted
“Interest in the Petitioner's work and his plans for future activities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
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

2,501coded 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 used the immigrant-contribution/economic-impact articles (general field importance evidence) as the basis for finding 'substantial merit' but rejected them for national importance, explicitly distinguishing field importance from endeavor-specific importance; also noted the Petitioner's own Master's degree was obtained after filing and thus untimely for threshold eligibility.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
INA 203(b)(2)
INA 291
Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's impact extended beyond his own company/clients/partners to the broader field or economy at a nationally significant scale.

Transferable lesson

Quantify and document projected job creation, revenue, or industry-wide ripple effects beyond your own company and clients to satisfy prong 1 magnitude.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer