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 work as a financial manager and start his own company importing and exporting mining and construction equipment/parts between the U.S., Mongolia, and other countries.
Field: financial management / import-export of mining equipment · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO questioned whether the Petitioner's degree was from an accredited institution and whether he had five years of progressive experience, but reserved this issue as unnecessary given the dispositive NIW analysis.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established
“the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation and does not explain in detail how its forecasts were calculated”
“he has not detailed how the claimed creation of 33 direct jobs and 165 indirect jobs by year five demonstrates a significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“simply working in an important industry is insufficient to establish the proposed endeavor's national importance”
“he does not elaborate in detail on the Petitioner's future work and why it, in particular, would be nationally important”
“the fact that the Petitioner' proposed endeavor may be in a HUBZone is irrelevant to whether the Petitioner's endeavor rises to a level of national importance”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner failed to provide the requested documentation reflecting his plans to financially support his proposed endeavor, including corroboration of his alleged $1,000,000 initial investment”
“the Petitioner points to the success of his family's company in Mongolia, he does corroborate his claim with any evidence”
“As the Petitioner has not meaningfully contested the Director's grounds for denial under this prong, he has not overcome them”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the business plan does not adequately support these projections of job and revenue creation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they provide little probative information to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the documentation does not appear to establish that he possesses an advanced degree from an accredited college or university”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“the evidence does not appear to show that he acquired five years of full-time, progressive experience in the field”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“The articles and reports, however, provide only general background information on these subjects and do not specifically relate to or discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
Notable
AAO reserved the threshold EB-2 advanced-degree question (raising serious doubts about degree accreditation and progressive experience) as unnecessary given the dispositive NIW analysis, but explicitly warned the Petitioner to address these issues in any future NIW filings. AAO also withdrew the Director's favorable finding on prong 1 despite affirming denial, finding national importance not established even though the Director had found it satisfied. Notably rejected the HUBZone/SBA set-aside argument as irrelevant since the Petitioner did not meet ownership criteria for the program.
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)
- INA 203(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