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 real estate developer in Florida, aiming to develop affordable, workforce, and senior housing, while also expanding into property management, senior care services, financial assistance, and real estate investment services.
Field: real estate development · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director determined, and AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“we conclude that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence regarding his proposed endeavor's substantive nature such that we can even evaluate whether it has national importance”
“the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear”
“there is little evidence in the record that he has identified any property, purchased any property, or otherwise pointed to any meaningful steps taken in his endeavor”
“the letters in and of themselves do not provide adequate corroborating evidence to support the endeavor's alleged broader impacts to the industry, economy, or nation”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“General conclusory statements, without more, are insufficient to carry the Petitioner's burden of proof.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the letters in and of themselves do not provide adequate corroborating evidence to support the endeavor's alleged broader impacts”
AAO decision text - funding · discounted
“he has not corroborated his assertion”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“they appear to have been created as part of a graduate degree project and not in relation to his proposed endeavor”
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
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
- Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
Notable
AAO found the proposed endeavor so vague and expansive (spanning real estate development, property management, senior care, financial assistance, and investment services) that it could not even conduct the national importance analysis. AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 but flagged an unresolved $250,000 investment corroboration issue as a warning for future filings under prong 2.
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
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