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 and operate a U.S. company providing software and firmware updates for smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other devices, though he inconsistently described the endeavor across filing stages as technology consulting, an IT entrepreneurial venture, and later a transportation-related software update company.
Field: information technology / electronics and wireless communications · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Due to the inconsistent information provided by the Petitioner at various stages regarding his proposed endeavor, it is unclear whether the Petitioner proposes to work”
“The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to support the projections in the business plan.”
“a shortage of qualified professionals alone is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the national interest waiver”
“rather than benefiting his own company and its clients or customers”
“Without sufficient documentary evidence of its broader impact, the Petitioner's proposed work does not meet the national importance element of the first prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to support the projections in the business plan.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof”
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
The Petitioner changed the description of his proposed endeavor across three stages of the proceeding (technology consultant in electronics/wireless communications; IT entrepreneur; transportation-field software company), which the AAO cited as undermining national importance analysis via Matter of Ho's inconsistency doctrine.
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(k)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
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