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, an attorney, sought to establish a consulting firm offering international trade, customs compliance, and legal/business consulting services to corporate clients in North America, aiming to boost foreign direct investment (particularly from Venezuela) and create jobs.
Field: international trade / customs compliance consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director found Petitioner eligible as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The same evidence does not adequately describe how the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor demonstrates it has national or even global implications in the particular field”
“it does not sufficiently show how those services extend beyond the "industries and companies of the public and private sectors of North America"”
“they did not specify the magnitude of increase they expected to realize”
“The Petitioner's professional plan indicates a nascent plan to employ one individual at some indeterminate time in the future”
“the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters do not refer to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“it does not sufficiently show how those services extend beyond the industries and companies they intend to target”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of their proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“not sufficient to demonstrate the national importance of their proposed endeavor”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the author does not convincingly articulate the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's past performance of their duties has global or national implications”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- 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
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
AAO emphasizes a conceptual distinction between the proposed endeavor and the petitioner's past execution/track record, explicitly stating that letters and credentials describing past performance are more relevant to prong 2 than prong 1's national importance analysis, and criticizes lack of specificity regarding magnitude of foreign direct investment and job creation.
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
- Flores v. Garland
- Matter of Caron Int'l
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Matter of Y-B-
- Section 291 of the Act
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