dismissedAUG072024_04B52032024-08-07 · appeal · Texas Service Center

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 own and operate a U.S.-based digital marketing and mobile application consultancy, offering services such as branding, SEO/PPC campaigns, and app development/testing to small and medium-sized businesses.

Field: digital marketing and mobile application consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, holding that her two Brazilian bachelor's degrees did not combine into a single-source foreign equivalent degree, and that even if they did, she lacked five years of post-degree progressive experience before filing.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the industry or customer base a petitioner will serve alone is not sufficient to establish national importance”

“activities which only benefit the Petitioner's clients, like the offerings outlined in her business plan, would not have broader implications in the field.”

“the plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections.”

“the Petitioner has not explained how these proposed employment numbers and revenue will impact the area of intended operations.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

business plan · discounted
“the plan provides no explanation for the basis of these projections.”
AAO decision text
recommendation letter · discounted
“do not analyze the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor or offer evidence of its impact, beyond commenting on her expertise or the importance of the field.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“the industry or customer base a petitioner will serve alone is not sufficient to establish national importance”
AAO decision text
degree · discounted
“the record does not establish she attained a single-source "foreign equivalent degree" as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“she submits the same claims and evidence previously submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) without addressing the Director's conclusions”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

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

2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

The AAO found the appeal deficient for failing to identify specific errors in the Director's decision, calling this alone grounds for dismissal, before nevertheless reaching the merits. It also withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner met the underlying EB-2 advanced-degree classification, holding her combination of two Brazilian bachelor's degrees did not constitute a single-source foreign equivalent degree and that she lacked five years of qualifying post-degree experience, though this was not the dispositive basis for dismissal.

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

← Back to the case explorer