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 open and operate a company in Florida providing financial management, tax, and internationalization consultancy and advisory services to small and medium-sized Brazilian companies seeking to expand into the United States.
Field: business consulting (financial management, tax, and internationalization advisory) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director determined, and AAO agreed, that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“he has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate them”
“The Petitioner has not established the claimed fact with unsupported testimonial evidence alone.”
“The Petitioner has not shown how his proposed endeavor to open and operate a company...would make a significant impact on the service sector more broadly rather than benefiting his company's clients.”
“the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that his company's teaching or instrnctional activities offer benefits that extend beyond the company's students or trainees to impact the field of business more broadly”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not address the national importance of his proposed endeavor or how his planned business activities would have broader implications”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate them”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“they do not address the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The Petitioner has not established the claimed fact with unsupported testimonial evidence alone.”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO found threshold EB-2 advanced degree eligibility met and Director agreed; the case turned entirely on prong 1 national importance, with AAO expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3 despite noting the petitioner's evidence (company formation, EIN, training certificate, support letters) could support prong 2. AAO cited Dhanasar's own teaching-activity example as analogous to petitioner's training services.
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)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- 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