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 open and operate a business development enterprise specializing in sustainable agriculture/sustainable products, projecting sales growth, tax contributions, and direct and indirect job creation.
Field: business development / sustainable agriculture products · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Director and AAO agreed the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced-degree professional based on a bachelor's equivalent plus five years of progressive experience in chemical engineering/business.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the record does not provide support for the stated financial projections.”
“Without further explanation of the basis for these projections, we cannot assess whether the stated estimates are credible”
“this does not further a claim that the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor will have a broader impact to his field.”
“the record does not establish that the Petitioner will be creating jobs in areas that are economically depressed as he states.”
“there is insufficient information about the 376 indirect jobs.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“his past experience does not establish national importance under the Dhanasar framework.”
AAO decision text - business plan · discounted
“the record does not provide support for the stated financial projections.”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“this letter does not further the Petitioner's assertion of the national importance of 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
- Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
Notable
The AAO rejected job-creation projections partly because the RIMS II indirect-jobs multiplier was used without explanation of how or where the jobs would be created, and because the petitioner failed to identify any economically depressed area despite planning multi-state operations from a Florida headquarters.
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
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Flores v. Garland
- INA 203(b)(2)
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