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, described inconsistently as a CEO/entrepreneur of a wallpaper company or alternatively as a Treasurer and Controller in finance, sought to continue that work in the United States.
Field: wallpaper business / finance (treasury and controllership) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner's three-year Titulo de Tecnólogo, even combined with 28 years of experience via a credential evaluation, did not satisfy the advanced-degree requirement, which requires a single U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent (plus five years progressive experience), not a combination of lesser education and experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“Because the Petitioner has not consistently described his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he has sufficiently established its substantial merit and national importance.”
“The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“we will not grant any evidentiary weight to the evaluation presented on record”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“an advanced degree equivalency requires a single degree, rather than a combination of experiences or lesser education credentials”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner again discusses the business plan for his wallpaper company”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not consistently described his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The Petitioner gave inconsistent accounts of his proposed endeavor throughout the proceeding—alternating between a wallpaper company CEO/entrepreneur endeavor and a Treasurer/Controller finance endeavor—which the AAO treated as an unresolved factual inconsistency under Matter of Ho, making Prong 1 dispositive without reaching Prongs 2 or 3. The AAO also withdrew the Director's favorable threshold EB-2 advanced degree finding sua sponte, rejecting a credential evaluation that combined a three-year degree with years of experience.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
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