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 leads an IT services company he founded in Florida that designs custom hardware, software, security, and automation solutions for small businesses lacking in-house R&D capacity.
Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding the equivalent of an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“This vague and general assertion is entirely new on appeal.”
“the Petitioner had not established that the proposed endeavor would produce significant benefit beyond those individual clients”
“they do not establish that the company has had a significant impact beyond the four customers in and around Florida who submitted letters”
“The Petitioner did not establish the significance of these figures in the context of the U.S. real estate market.”
“the lack of evidence about the company's past performance diminishes the weight we give to those estimates, as do the Petitioner's changes to those projections”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“The business plan does not quantify the proposed endeavor's expected impact in the identified areas of concern.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“they do not establish that the company has had a significant impact beyond the four customers in and around Florida”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“The Petitioner did not establish the significance of these figures in the context of the U.S. real estate market.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“does not establish errors of fact or law in the Director's decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v)”
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
- Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The Petitioner analogized his endeavor's job-creation projections to the EB-5 program's 10-job requirement; the AAO rejected the comparison as inapposite. The AAO also invoked Matter of Izummi's material-change doctrine to reject a newly asserted 'educational sector' component of the endeavor raised for the first time on appeal.
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. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)
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