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 nurse-turned-entrepreneur, proposed to run a consulting firm offering medical device sales, marketing, training, and export-assistance services, including helping manufacturers expand into markets like Brazil.
Field: medical sales and marketing consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified for EB-2 as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the proposed endeavor did not stand to sufficiently extend beyond the Petitioner's prospective clients, associates and partners such that it would have a national impact”
“The Petitioner's economic arguments, namely that her work will reduce healthcare costs and increase productivity, are not accompanied by evidence of the particularized economic impact that her endeavor would produce.”
“she has not demonstrated that her work has implications within her field as contemplated in Dhanasar”
“Beyond generally asserting the economic benefits of marketing and entrepreneurship on the macroeconomic scale and asserting that her endeavor would have undefined "ripple effects" upon the economy”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“she has not demonstrated how these impacts are nationally important”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
- degree · credited
- other · discounted
“not accompanied by evidence of the particularized economic impact that her endeavor would produce”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
Petitioner argued the Director applied a heightened evidentiary standard beyond the regulations; AAO rejected this claim for lack of specificity as to what the extra requirements were.
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
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed prong one: the endeavor's benefits were confined to her own clients/partners and lacked evidence of broader field, economic, or national-scale impact.
Support national importance claims with concrete, quantifiable evidence of broad-scale impact (industry, region, or national economy), not generalized entrepreneurship rhetoric or personal credentials.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · field_advancement
person_focused
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