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 work as a business coach through his own Florida-based company, providing tailored coaching and guidance to individuals and organizations on sales, marketing, and business development.
Field: business coaching/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO agreed, that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on a foreign equivalent bachelor's degree plus five years of progressive experience; AAO withdrew Director's negative treatment of Petitioner's failure to also qualify as exceptional ability, since only one classification basis is required.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the personal statement does not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner's coaching services will impact the field or the population beyond his own clients at a level commensurate with national importance”
“these claims relate to management consulting and business coaching, and the importance of these industries overall, rather than to the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“the opinion letter is of little probative value as it primarily repeats the information stated by the Petitioner and conflates the importance and benefits of business consulting in general with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
“None of the articles discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, its potential impact, and how it may have national importance”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“conflates the importance and benefits of business consulting in general with the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“this evidence again relates to the importance of the field in general and the industry overall”
AAO decision text - business plan · ignored
“the record does not contain a business plan, as the decision claims, and we withdraw the Director's statement to the contrary”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
Notable
AAO partially sided with Petitioner on procedural errors (Director's use of feminine pronouns for a male petitioner, erroneous reference to a nonexistent business plan, improper independent internet/EDGAR search to question business entity's existence, and improperly treating failure to qualify as exceptional ability as a negative factor), withdrawing those portions of the Director's decision, yet still dismissed the appeal on the merits because national importance (prong 1) was not established, deeming this dispositive without reaching prongs 2 and 3 or even substantial merit.
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
- Matter of E-M-
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution