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 planned to found his own consulting company in the U.S. offering business strategy, digital marketing, e-commerce, CRM, and technology-transformation services to help small and medium-sized U.S. businesses improve productivity and financial performance.
Field: business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The Petitioner, however, has not provided evidence demonstrating that his proposed business consulting activities would operate on such a scale as to rise to a level of national importance.”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor.”
“he did not elaborate on these projections or provide evidence supporting the need for these additional employees”
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
“The determination of national importance does not focus on the importance of one's field in general, the value of small businesses to economic growth, or government initiatives”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“these projections are not supported by details showing their basis or an explanation of how they will be achieved”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“none of the articles mention the Petitioner or his company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
“relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national"”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
AAO treated industry/economic articles (freight system, American Rescue Plan, Inflation Reduction Act, small business trends) as going to field/industry importance rather than the specific endeavor, reiterating that letters of support and client interest letters were more relevant to prong 2 but declined to reach prong 2 since prong 1 was dispositive.
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.
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of L-A-C-
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