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 proposed to establish an educational and research institute in Florida offering courses, seminars, and consulting services on social science, contemporary history, criminology, and transnational/cybercrime.
Field: social science, contemporary history, criminology/transnational crime consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO withdrew Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; recommendation letters did not meet 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B) requirements to establish progressive experience equivalent to a master's degree. Exceptional-ability claim was reserved for future consideration and not decided.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show through supporting documentation how his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond its prospective students and/or clients”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects”
“neither the opinion letter nor the professional plan's projections concerning the business are supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the basis of the estimates forecasted”
“the Petitioner's experience, skills, expertise, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B)”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“neither the opinion letter nor the professional plan's projections concerning the business are supported by probative evidence to demonstrate the basis of the estimates forecasted”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“do not include specific dates of employment, and do not indicate whether the employment was full-time”
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
- 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
AAO withdrew the Director's favorable finding on advanced-degree eligibility but reserved the exceptional-ability claim and Dhanasar prongs 2 and 3 for future consideration, dismissing solely on prong 1 national importance grounds while noting each basis was independent and alternate.
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- 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