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, an entrepreneur in accounting/business, proposed to launch and operate a business venture per a submitted business plan.
Field: accounting/business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“that the proposed endeavor will impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“that the proposed endeavor realistically has the significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive effects for the United States”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“referenced previously submitted evidence... offering the same or similar arguments that the Director already considered”
AAO decision text - funding · ignored
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
Notable
Unusual procedural posture: the appeal challenges the Director's dismissal of a combined motion to reopen/reconsider, not the original I-140 denial directly, so AAO's review is limited to whether the motions were properly dismissed rather than a full re-adjudication of eligibility. A footnote notes the Director erred by analyzing investor funding interest under Dhanasar prong 1 rather than prong 2, though this error was deemed immaterial to the outcome.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
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