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 sought to establish and act as U.S. country manager for a company providing cloud computing, IT infrastructure management, security, and outsourcing services to small and medium U.S. businesses, as a U.S. counterpart to his existing Brazilian company.
Field: information technology / IT services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner's Brazilian 'Titulo de Tecnologo' (2-3 year program per EDGE) does not equal a U.S. bachelor's degree, so he did not establish a bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience required for the advanced degree equivalency; AAO reserved the exceptional-ability question since other prongs were dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence to establish his endeavor will have an impact beyond the client companies he would serve”
“the relevant query is not the importance of the industry or profession the individual will work, but on the specific endeavor the petitioner proposes to undertake”
“the record does not contain supporting documentation or explanation for the basis of these projected figures for U.S.”
“The Petitioner also did not meet his burden of demonstrating how these projections... result in benefits to the regional or national economy”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“The letters do not, moreover, explain or provide specific examples of how his achievements render the Petitioner well positioned to advance his future endeavor”
“the record does not contain supporting evidence of the Petitioner's claimed financial success in his current company related to the endeavor”
“the record does not contain supporting documentation for these claimed investments and revenue”
“we do not find the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated progress toward his proposed endeavor or a record of success in a related effort”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“he has not established that he has a U.S. bachelor's degree or a foreign equivalent followed by five years”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not contain supporting documentation or explanation for the basis of these projected figures for U.S.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The letters do not, moreover, explain or provide specific examples of how his achievements render the Petitioner well positioned”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“having relevant educational and professional credentials and experience does not render a petitioner well positioned to advance a specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“lack of current contract, agreements, or other documentary evidence for the United States business”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- funding · discounted
“the record does not contain supporting documentation for these claimed investments and revenue”
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
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
The Petitioner raised a due process argument claiming the Director should have addressed all three Dhanasar prongs; AAO rejected this citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for declining to reach unnecessary issues. AAO found p1 and p2 both failed and treated them jointly as dispositive, declining to reach p3 or the exceptional-ability alternative to the threshold EB-2 issue.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to show the endeavor's impact extended beyond his own clients/employees to the broader field or economy, and lacked evidence of progress, financing, or third-party interest establishing he was well positioned to advance it.
Support projected economic impact with verifiable documentation and explicitly link the endeavor's effects to national/regional scale, not just industry importance or personal credentials.
vague
economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area
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