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 continue operating and expanding his Florida-based residential and commercial painting company, projecting increased staffing, revenue, and economic contributions.
Field: residential and commercial painting services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner's foreign technology diplomas plus work experience were found insufficient to equate to a U.S. baccalaureate or advanced degree; regulations do not permit combining sub-baccalaureate education with experience to meet the advanced-degree requirement.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner has not shown that his proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact his field”
“he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that his endeavor offers Florida or the United States a substantial economic benefit through employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity”
“The issue here, however, is not the national importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“does not indicate that the Petitioner has "a foreign equivalent degree" to either a U.S. advanced degree or a U.S. baccalaureate degree”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“he did not adequately explain how these sales forecasts were calculated”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not contain sufficient information and explanation ... to show that the Petitioner's specific proposed work ... offers broader implications”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
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
Notable
The AAO treated both the threshold advanced-degree failure and the Prong 1 national importance failure as independent and alternate bases for dismissal; extensive economic and industry-report evidence submitted by the petitioner was deemed insufficiently tied to his specific endeavor.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Chen v. INS
- 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