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, an IT entrepreneur, proposed to open his own IT consulting/managed-services company in Florida (with planned later expansion to New York and California) offering Microsoft solutions, cybersecurity, and IT support to small and medium enterprises.
Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner qualified as advanced-degree professional via bachelor's degree plus progressive experience; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“This information does not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner did not cite supporting inf01mation for either version of the staffing projection, and did not establish that this level of staffing would have the "substantial positive economic effects"”
“But the record does not show that the company has advanced beyond the conceptual stage.”
“The business plan also contends that the proposed endeavor will "address ... the shortage of qualified and experienced LT. professionals," but did not explain how it would do so.”
“The importance of an entire field or industry does not establish the national importance of one company within that field or industty.”
“In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the record does not show that the company has advanced beyond the conceptual stage”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“The Petitioner did not document this type of outside interest in his work.”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“these materials amount to background information about general subjects”
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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
Notable
AAO found the business plan's employment projections were mathematically inflated by double-counting the same hires across multiple years in cumulative totals, and criticized the plan for using present-tense language implying the company was already operational when it was still conceptual.
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)
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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