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, a Brazilian entrepreneur with a Licenciado degree in Portuguese letters and literature and experience in the medical device industry, proposed to establish a medical device sales and distribution company in the U.S., with offices in Florida and Ohio.
Field: medical device sales and distribution · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's initial professional plan did not describe a "specific proposed endeavor" with enough detail for us to evaluate its potential impact”
“the business plan does not provide any basis for the estimated number ofjobs created”
“we cannot assess whether the business plan's stated revenue projections and job creation estimates are credible”
“the studies and articles cited by the Petitioner do not discuss the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not provide any basis for the estimated number of jobs created”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“evidence of the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and expertise, including his work experience, generally relates to the second prong”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“evidence of the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and expertise, including his work experience, generally relates to the second prong”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the studies and articles cited by the Petitioner do not discuss the Petitioner or his proposed endeavor”
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
- 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
Notable
AAO declined to reach the underlying EB-2 classification, substantial merit, or prongs 2/3, resting dismissal solely on national importance (prong 1). AAO also flagged that the Petitioner's revised endeavor (medical device company) may constitute an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi, though it proceeded to evaluate it anyway since both Director and Petitioner had addressed its merits.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of Izummi
- 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