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 entrepreneur, proposed to own and operate a digital marketing and mobile application consultancy company in the United States, serving small and medium-sized businesses including in rural Florida.
Field: digital marketing and mobile application consultancy · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner did not establish a single-source foreign equivalent bachelor's degree, and even crediting her second (qualifying) degree completed in 2019, she had not accrued five years of progressive post-degree experience before filing in 2022.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the industry or customer base a petitioner will serve alone is not sufficient to establish national importance”
“It is insufficient to claim an endeavor has national importance or would create a broad impact without providing evidence to substantiate such claims.”
“The business plan in the record, while indicating that the proposed endeavor anticipates creating 42 jobs, does not explain the bases for these projections”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“does not explain the bases for these projections, nor does it address the endeavor's impact on rural communities in Florida”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“insufficient to demonstrate the proposed endeavor's broader impact on the field”
AAO decision text - media · discounted
“does not address the potential economic benefits of the proposed endeavor to rural Florida”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“this dates from her first bachelor's degree that required three-and-a-half years of study”
AAO decision text - degree · discounted
“the record did not show that the Petitioner held a single-source foreign equivalent degree”
AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not established eligibility”
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 Petitioner argued the Director's illustrative, noncomprehensive list of national-importance evidence types was a mandatory checklist of required criteria; the AAO rejected this misreading. The degree analysis turned on the fact that her first bachelor's degree required only three-and-a-half years of study, so her post-degree experience clock could not begin until her second (four/two-year) degree completed in 2019, leaving her short of the five-year requirement.
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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
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