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 diagnostic solutions and supplies company for diabetes care in an economically depressed part of Florida, offering equipment and products to health professionals and diabetic patients.
Field: pharmaceutical sales / diabetes diagnostic equipment and supplies · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO agreed Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national importance requirement because he did not show that the proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond the individuals the Petitioner's company would serve”
“the Petitioner has not explained the bases for the economic projections in the business plan and the economic analysis, nor does the record contain evidence supporting these claims”
“The business plan does not estimate an anticipated number of patients that may be reached, but only that the business consumers will be medical clinics, hospital units, teaching hospitals, and the diabetic public”
“the record does not sufficiently show that this undertaking has broader implications for his field, as opposed to being limited to those who participate in his lectures, training courses, or knowledge management system”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“lack of supporting details detracts from the credibility and probative value of the business plan and economic analysis”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“the letters from potential investors did not commit a specific amount of money”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · ignored
- resume experience · credited
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner resubmitted much of the previously submitted documentation with some additional evidence”
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
Notable
AAO addressed and rejected a procedural due-process claim that the Director erroneously referenced an 'Expert Opinion Letter' not in the record, finding no prejudice; also clarified that investor letters go to prong 2 (well-positioned), not prong 1 (national importance).
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of L-A-C-
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