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 own and operate a company providing web and mobile systems development, API/cloud architecture, business intelligence, and IT consulting services, with plans to hire a small staff.
Field: information technology / software development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Petitioner did not meet at least three of six exceptional ability criteria; only the academic record criterion was satisfied. Comparable evidence request was rejected for lack of explanation.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's specific undertaking stands to have an impact beyond the organization and clients he would serve”
“however a lack of professionals is an insufficient reason to conclude his endeavor is of national importance to our national or cyber security”
“the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from his projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects" contemplated by Dhanasar”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“the letters were insufficient because no details of his duties were included, and the job title alone was insufficient”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“it does not show how his earnings compared with those of top earners in the software development field”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner's evidence is insufficient to determine his level of membership”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“letters, written for the purpose of supporting a petition for immigration benefits, are generally less probative than evidence which contemporaneously recognizes a petitioner”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- business plan · discounted
“he does not claim, and the record does not establish, that he plans to introduce novel technologies or IT advancements that may be disseminated to or adopted by others”
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
- 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 conducted a full alternate merits review of exceptional-ability criteria despite threshold failure being sufficient to dismiss, and separately reached and dismissed on Dhanasar prong 1 even though ineligibility for EB-2 was independently dispositive; declined to reach prongs 2 and 3, citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for not addressing unnecessary issues.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(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