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 continue working as an entrepreneur in tourism, launching and expanding her own company to sell U.S. travel packages to Brazilian and South American tourists.
Field: tourism industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Evidence of five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience was insufficient; the corroborating letter came from a family-member business co-owner who lacked knowledge of the Petitioner's later work and did not show progressive duties.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”
“a simple claim of what she hopes her business will achieve amounts to little more than conjecture.”
“none of the letters' authors provide sufficient details regarding the impact of her work, nor do they offer corroborating evidence to support their claims.”
“she has not explained how her specific business functions in a superior or more cost-effective manner than other, preexisting travel and tourism agencies.”
“we conclude the Petitioner's evidence of her past impact to the field is vague and unsubstantiated.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“The author does not explain how these activities were progressive in nature rather than simply ongoing.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the letters' authors provide sufficient details regarding the impact of her work, nor do they offer corroborating evidence to support their claims.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“a simple claim of what she hopes her business will achieve amounts to little more than conjecture.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner's reliance on background information and statistics concerning the economic impact of immigrants, entrepreneurs, small businesses, and the tourism industry is misplaced.”
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
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
The AAO withdrew the Director's favorable threshold finding sua sponte, concluding the Petitioner did not qualify for the EB-2 classification at all, in addition to failing prong one; it discounted the key experience letter partly because the author, a business co-owner, appeared to be a family member and thus not objective.
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)(3)(ii)
- 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