dismissedFEB262021_02B52032021-02-26 · appeal · Nebraska Service Center
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 grow his U.S.-based real estate investment company and provide business, legal compliance, and expansion consulting services to companies, institutions, and individuals.
Field: real estate investment and consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company and its clientele to impact the U.S. economy or real estate industry more broadly”
“he has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
“the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's real estate investment and consulting projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive
“the record does not reflect sufficient interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals to demonstrate that the Petitioner is well positioned”
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner did not provide tax returns or audited financial statements for any of his companies as evidence of his progress in the proposed endeavor or record of success in business”
“no evidence was provided to suggest that he has made any progress towards achieving this goal, or to support that he has any interest from potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“he has not demonstrated that... are an indication that he is well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“no evidence was provided to suggest that he has made any progress towards achieving this goal”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“the Petitioner did not provide tax returns or audited financial statements for any of his companies”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“his limited amount of experience as a partner was not sufficient to establish a record of success in business”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“he has not demonstrated that the aforementioned membership and registrations are an indication that he is well positioned”
AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
- degree · discounted
“he has not shown that his academic accomplishments by themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that he is well positioned”
AAO decision text - other · ignored
“where a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
- Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
- Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
- No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
- Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
- Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3 — prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
2,501coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This case arose from a revocation (NOIR followed by revocation of a previously approved I-140), not an initial denial; the AAO reviewed de novo whether good and sufficient cause supported revocation, and expressly declined to accept new appellate evidence under Matter of Soriano/Obaigbena because the Petitioner had already been placed on notice of the deficiency via the NOIR.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- Matter of Ho
- Poursina v. USCIS
- Section 291 of the Act
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