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 develop and expand a Florida-based LLC selling Turkish cotton towels and clothing via a drop-shipping business model and direct sales website, serving as its founder and CEO.
Field: retail/drop shipping clothing and towel business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; only the waiver was at issue.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or address the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
“the articles do not establish that his proposed endeavor would extend beyond his company's individual clients to impact these national interests more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his company's projected employment and income will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“The text of these letters is nearly identical, which detracts from their probative value”
“do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or any impact it would have in the retail industry”
“does not specify how the Petitioner's work would extend beyond his company and its customers to impact the retail industry”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- media · discounted
“the articles address the importance of entrepreneurship...but they do not address his specific proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his company's projected employment and income will have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor or any impact it would have in the retail industry”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“they attest to his contributions to their companies...do not discuss the Petitioner's 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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- 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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Notable
AAO noted that three of the recommendation letters submitted in response to the RFE contained nearly identical text, which it found detracted from their probative value—an independence/authenticity concern typically coded under prong 2 but raised here within the prong 1 national importance analysis.
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
- 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