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 fashion communication specialist, providing communication/consulting services connected to prospective partnership businesses in the fashion industry.
Field: fashion communication · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
Academic evaluation and transcript showed the Petitioner completed only three academic years, which does not equate to a U.S. baccalaureate degree requiring four years, per Matter of Shah; the updated evaluation submitted on motion omitted the problematic coursework statements but did not cure the deficiency.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“We determined the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated that his specific endeavor would have broader implications for his field, the U.S. economy, or societal welfare.”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor's impact stands to sufficiently extend beyond his prospective partnership businesses to impact the fashion industry field, the U.S. economy, or societal welfare at a level commensurate with national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“the Petitioner has not submitted any evidence or arguments that could be construed as "new facts" that were previously unavailable”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the Petitioner has not established that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the Dhanasar precedent decision.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“The evaluation reiterates the same information as the previous evaluation but omits the statements we highlighted”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
Notable
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider relied solely on comparing his expert letters to those in Matter of Dhanasar itself, which the AAO found factually distinguishable (Dhanasar involved hypersonic propulsion research with strategic/military significance). The threshold EB-2 issue centers on a three-year foreign degree evaluation deemed not equivalent to a four-year U.S. baccalaureate under Matter of Shah, and the updated evaluation submitted on motion simply omitted the problematic coursework language rather than curing it.
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(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of Coelho
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