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 operate and grow an antiques cargo transportation business, shipping antique items across multiple U.S. states and projecting future employee growth and revenue.
Field: antiques cargo transportation / logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found the occupation of 'antique cargo transportation entrepreneur' was not established as a profession despite Petitioner holding a foreign equivalent master's degree in social work; AAO reserved opinion on this issue since prong 1 was dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“there is not sufficient documentary evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has the potential to impact these fields at a level commensurate with national importance”
“These articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, its potential impact, or otherwise demonstrate that the endeavor stands to have an impact on the antiques market or the shipping and logistics industries”
“the plan does not provide any basis to support these projections. As such, we cannot assess whether the business plan's stated revenue projections and job creation estimates are credible”
“the Petitioner has not offered a sufficiently direct connection between his company's activities and any demonstrable economic effect”
“the record does not contain sufficient objective, documentary evidence to establish the endeavor's potential prospective impact on infrastructure or the transportation sector”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the plan does not provide any basis to support these projections”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“These articles do not discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, its potential impact”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence to establish that this amount of revenue earned...would result in "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text - degree · ignored
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
Notable
AAO expressly reserved opinion on the EB-2 threshold classification issue (whether antique cargo transportation entrepreneur qualifies as a profession) because prong 1 was dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad twice for declining to make advisory findings.
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
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