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 create a co-living management platform for senior citizens using AI, financial management tools, and health integration features to provide affordable housing, social connection, and aging-in-place support.
Field: co-living/senior housing technology platform (geodetic engineering background) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
SCOPS found and AAO agreed the Petitioner's foreign master's degree in geodesy engineering was equivalent to a U.S. master's, satisfying the advanced degree professional requirement.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the relevance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor to important issues does not establish the proposed endeavor's national importance as it does not demonstrate its prospective impact”
“the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry as sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner and the author provide little meaningful detail beyond generalized descriptions to explain why his management platform is innovative”
“the record demonstrates that the proposed endeavor's impact is limited to the users of and therefore does not meet Dhanasar's definition of national importance”
“the record does not provide sufficient detail in order for us to determine if his proposed endeavor will have a substantial economic impact”
“the record does not establish where he will carry out his endeavor and how he will operate in a way to impact economically depressed areas”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record lacks specificity”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“little meaningful detail beyond generalized descriptions”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
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
- 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
AAO cites Flores v. Garland (5th Cir. 2023) as authority that NIW grant/denial is discretionary, joining other circuits; also invokes Dhanasar's own teaching-activities example as an internal analogy for why the endeavor's impact was limited to users rather than the broader field.
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. 103.5
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- 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