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, an entrepreneur in business consulting, proposed to run a company providing internationalization, financial consulting, and training services to help U.S. small and medium-sized businesses, including in economically depressed areas of Florida.
Field: business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on motion.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner claims his proposed endeavor has national importance because it will make numerous significant contributions to the United States.”
“the Petitioner does not identify any incorrect application of law or policy in our prior decision on appeal.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not assert any new facts and does not submit any new evidence”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
- resume experience · discounted
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The decision is a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior AAO dismissal on prong 1 grounds. The motion to reopen failed because no new facts or evidence were submitted; the motion to reconsider failed because the Petitioner did not identify any specific legal or policy error in the prior decision, merely reasserting arguments about national importance.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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