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 establish and own a human resources consulting business in Florida, offering services in employee retention, engagement, recruitment, and workforce productivity to small and medium-sized U.S. companies.
Field: human resources consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO found de novo that Petitioner is eligible as an advanced degree professional based on foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has the potential to extend beyond her business and its clients to impact the field more broadly”
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
“The growth and importance of an industry is not sufficient to meet the national importance requirement under the Dhanasar framework”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her business and her future clients to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly”
“The industry reports and articles submitted do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not sufficiently detail the basis for its financial and staffing projections, or adequately explain how these projections will be realized”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“Her academic credentials and professional experience relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- media · discounted
“merely working in the human resources field or starting a human resources consulting business is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- 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 exercised de novo review to find threshold EB-2 advanced degree eligibility satisfied even though the Director's decision had not addressed it, then dismissed solely on prong 1 national importance while expressly reserving prongs 2 and 3, despite the Director having found prong 2 met and only prong 3 unmet below.
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)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of E-M-
- 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