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 IT and business development entrepreneur, planned to start a company in the United States providing IT solutions, search engine optimization, and e-commerce tools to help American companies improve efficiency and online visibility.
Field: information technology / business development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not establish at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii): academic record, ten years experience, salary, membership, and recognition for achievements were all found unmet.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company, future clientele, or business partnership to impact his field or the IT industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“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 for our nation.”
“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.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“this transcipt does not show that he received a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from the university.”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“These letters do not indicate that the Petitioner's work as a consultant was full-time.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“This information is not sufficient to demonstrate that BDLA has a membership body comprised of individuals who have earned a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the evidence is not sufficient to show that his work constituted achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The record therefore shows that the Petitioner's proposed work as an IT entrepreneur has substantial merit.”
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
- 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
Notable
AAO withdrew two of the Director's favorable findings (academic record and membership criteria) while still finding exceptional ability not established overall; salary evidence relied on a non-contemporaneous salary survey (data validity 2018-2019 vs. earnings years 2006-2009 and 2015-2017); AAO explicitly noted the exceptional-ability failure and the NIW prong-one failure were each independent and alternate bases for dismissal.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 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