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-trained lawyer, proposed to found and lead an international business consulting and contracts company in Florida (expanding to other states) providing legal and business advisory services to U.S. and Latin American companies regarding trade and investment.
Field: labor and business law / international legal consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; AAO reserved this issue since the appeal was dismissed on prong 1, but noted in a footnote that the record does not sufficiently document five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the business plan does not explain how the company's projected total sales were calculated”
“the record does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the areas where it will operate are economically depressed”
“A determination regarding the claimed national importance of a specific proposed endeavor cannot be inferred based on the Petitioner's past achievements”
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not explain how the company's projected total sales were calculated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“much of the content of the expert opinion letter lacked relevance and probative value with respect to the national importance”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's expertise acquired through her academic and professional career relates to the second prong”
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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
AAO footnoted that the Petitioner likely does not qualify for the underlying advanced-degree EB-2 classification (insufficient five years of progressive experience) but reserved that issue since the appeal was dismissed on prong 1 alone; case is factually a solo-practitioner/entrepreneur business plan scenario.
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 Caron Int'l
- Matter of D-R-
- Matter of L-A-C-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution