dismissedAUG162023_02B52032023-08-16 · appeal · Nebraska 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, who had worked in airline revenue management/pricing in Brazil, proposed to establish her own consulting company in Florida to provide revenue-optimization and pricing consulting services to small and medium-sized U.S. tourism and travel businesses.
Field: revenue management/pricing analysis in tourism and hospitality industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not show that the petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond their company, future clientele, or business partnership to impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance.”
“The Petitioner does not establish that this level of job creation is "significant" or "substantial" as contemplated by Dhanasar”
“The Petitioner cannot meet her burden of proof by asserting that her proposed endeavor will provide unspecified benefits to individual clients in a major industry.”
“Professionals in the Petitioner's field are ordinarily subject to the statutory job offer requirement, and therefore general information about the field or industry does not establish eligibility for a waiver of that requirement.”
“The Petitioner has not explained how her proposed endeavor, focusing on optimizing prices and increasing revenues, would affect industry-wide labor supply issues.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not establish that this level of job creation is "significant" or "substantial" as contemplated by Dhanasar”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“Against these numbers, the Petitioner does not establish the broader economic significance of her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- 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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,312coded 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
AAO expressly reserved analysis of prongs two and three, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not reach unnecessary issues once the outcome is determined.
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
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