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 operate six acai fruit bowl and smoothie franchise kiosks in mall locations in Florida, Kentucky, and Hawaii as general and operations manager.
Field: food service / franchise retail (acai bowls and smoothies) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
AAO affirmed Director's finding that Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional (bachelor's degree plus five years progressive experience), despite lack of formal degree equivalency evidence, relying on EDGE database.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“The record does not sufficiently show that the benefits of his proposed endeavor, either individually or cumulatively, would rise to the level of national importance.”
“The Petitioner has not specified the "solutions" and "innovations" that his proposed endeavor would purportedly offer to promote growth, expansion, change, and national economic advantage.”
“Further, the Petitioner has not explained how his business's number of employees would affect the national economy.”
“In general, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his venture would have the size or scope to impact the national economy.”
“But his initial filing indicates only that he would manage his business.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“his business plan projects that, within five years of operations, his kiosks would employ 27 people. But he has not explained the national significance of that number.”
AAO decision text - degree · credited
- other · discounted
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his projected number of employees would significantly affect the areas.”
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
Notable
AAO relied on the EDGE database (via a Brazilian bacharel degree equivalency and 11th Circuit precedent a limited liability company v. U.S. Att'y Gen.) to find EB-2 threshold met despite Petitioner's failure to submit degree equivalency evidence. Also used HUBZone economically-depressed-area argument, which AAO found insufficient absent detail on employee positions, wages, and hours. Case cites Dhanasar's own STEM-education example as an analogy for insufficient breadth of impact.
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of L-A-C-
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