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 proposed to operate her own company as a real estate broker and sales agent, later also framed around property management, in the United States.
Field: real estate brokerage/property management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
In the prior AAO appellate decision, the Petitioner's eligibility as an advanced degree professional and as an individual of exceptional ability was found not established, but this motion decision does not reach those issues because the national interest waiver denial is dispositive.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the articles submitted generally related to the importance of the real estate industry rather than the proposed endeavor she proposes to undertake”
“the evidence did not establish the proposed endeavor had significant potential to employ U.S. workers or will have substantial positive effects commensurate with national importance”
“the Applicant's business plan did not provide a sufficient basis for her company's projected number of employees or revenue generation or how those projections were on a scale rising to the level of national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“did not provide a sufficient basis for her company's projected number of employees or revenue generation”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“does not address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor offers original innovations to advance, or otherwise will have broader implications”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“generally confirm her employment history”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“does not assert new facts and instead restates information provided in her business plan”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“the articles submitted generally related to the importance of the real estate industry rather than the proposed endeavor”
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
- 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
The decision is a combined motion to reopen and reconsider following a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO declines to reach threshold EB-2 classification issues (advanced degree professional/exceptional ability) and prongs 2 and 3 of Dhanasar because the prong 1 national importance failure is dispositive, citing INS v. Bagamasbad.
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. 103.5
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of O-S-G-
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