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 planned to open and solely own a telecommunications company that would conduct market analysis, provide consulting/training services, and deploy telecommunications infrastructure to rural and underserved areas in several U.S. states.
Field: telecommunications · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced degree professional; AAO noted unresolved doubt about foreign degree's U.S. bachelor's equivalency but reserved the issue since appeal resolved on other grounds.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“would have any implications beyond her company and clients, to impact the field, industry, or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“there is no evidence to support interest in her services, evidence that her work will lead to the impacts claimed, or have [the] potential to operate in such a wide area”
“the letters provide little information about how the Petitioner's endeavor will have broader implications so as to reach the level of national importance.”
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as the letter does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and how it will have national importance.”
“we conclude that the prospective benefits of the Petitioner's endeavor are too attenuated to reach the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“there is no evidence to support interest in her services, evidence that her work will lead to the impacts claimed”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or any impact her endeavor will have on the field”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters provide little information about how the Petitioner's endeavor will have broader implications so as to reach the level of national importance.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the expert opinion letter is of little probative value as the letter does not meaningfully address the details of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
“we resolve this appeal on other grounds, we reserve our decision on this issue”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO flagged a possible unresolved threshold issue (foreign engineering degree's equivalency to a U.S. bachelor's degree) but declined to decide it, resolving the case entirely on prong 1 national importance grounds; also noted the business plan contained map errors mislabeling states.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- 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